Science vs Religion; The ultimate showdown of human origin?
How is it a contradiction to Genesis? Plant and animal life in the bible is told to "be fruitful and multiply" and "fill the Earth". So populate the Earth through procreation, which is how evolution is accomplished.
The only thing that doesn't really add up to me about evolution as the theory stands today is the 'random mutation' component. If it were truly random, for something like an eye to evolve over numerous generations, could something like we know to be the eye really evolve in that time? Real randomness caused by random mutations in the DNA would literally bring about any number of changes. But without deliberate design/intent, I find it hard to buy it can account for all life is as a stand alone un-aided explanation.I don't think it is a contradiction. It is a commonly purported contradiction. I was thinking today, that if we made a 14 billion year home movie of the universe, and played it back high speed, would it not look like man being formed from dust? Because humans live in a seemingly material/temporal reality, they are biased towards that. Things and enough time will suffice, for that bias. Yet all that information, developed something more than the empirical, it also created rationalism and lucky for us, logic was hanging around waiting....
This is the area in which I tend to go along with your reasoning Headly. A design process with a designing "mind" of some sort directing the process. Using the concept of evolution and mutation, with DNA to act as the carrier of information.
Fascinating and awesome in my opinion; far cry from the petty squabbles over whether there is a god or not. At the same time way beyond my ability to research and discover -so keep up the good work.
Personally, I'm not a religious freak. However, I do believe in God. I'm saying this because religion is too broad of a spectrum for me. Some religions practice things that are in my opinion ungodly, unholy and definitely questionable. I believe that God and Science are one in the same. Without God where would science be? We had to come into existence to even know there is a science to it all. It's that old question. Which came first the chicken or the egg? Or someone asking, which side of the quarter do you want to spend the front or the back? I believe they work harmoniously together for good. Check out this book: Man's Search For Himself by: Rollo May. Interesting read and GREAT question!
Hi,its is nice topic of discussion but i am not aware much of it.Not so much concerned about the topic.if you like to know more then please go to the following link to have much details.
[url=http://www.ezdia.com/epad/water-filter-reviews-information-water-filter-system/6864/ ]WATER FILTER REVIEWS AND INFORMATION [url=http://www.ezdia.com/epad/water-filter-reviews-information-water-filter-system/6864/]This forum is jacked, as usual, and it hasn't created the next page yet, so I can't tell what comment you're replying to. Is this in reference to my use of the word 'literal'?
No, it's a problem with the site. The script is supposed to create a new page with a new URL, but it doesn't get created, so when it sends us to the URL with the new page number that doesn't exist it defaults to the previous page. It's been a problem for a while and it's extremely tedious.
No, I meant literal. If you take what's described in Genesis literally, you can actually see in the historical record evidence that these events really happened. From a 1500 year pre-flood culture with a city that matches the city Cain built, to that culture being done in by a flood of the Mesopotamian valley, to a climate change that actually caused mass migrations of the people in that valley to scramble towards rivers in the area. Not just the events, but the impact of those events as well, including a dramatic behavior change that started right in that same culture that reflects the changes Genesis describes Adam/Eve going through.
Genesis 2-11 takes place between about 5500BC to 3500BC. These events are what set the modern human world in motion.OK, thank you.
Literally god created man and women and their first two sons were Cain and Abel.The third one Seth was born only after Abel was killed. Cain then went to built a city after the birth of his son Enoch and named it after him. So city probably means a house as there was not many people to be a city and, beyond that it was east of Eden, nothing is said about the city to place it.
Literally even though there should only be Cain and Adam and Eve, Cain got a wife and there were people who would have murdered him. . Literally there was a worldwide flood that killed all inhabitants of all the world except Noah and what he chose but still the fathers of all tent dwellers and lute players lived before that.
Along with the fact that there is no tribe of lute players,
Eridu was first established in 5400 BC, it is considered a city from 3000-2900 BC, a flood occurred in 2800 BC; the city was abandoned between 2100-2000 BC. So the city of Eridu was continued from 2950 to 2050 BC. Along with that city of Uruk was established (in 4500 BC) just nearby which persisted till the islamic period.
The first flood story was established by ancient babylonians based on some local floods of Euphrates. (The basin is notoriously prone to change course). The Judeans who were enslaved and deported to babylonian by the later babylonians heard the story there and incorporated it into their holy book when they wrote it. The Judeans were modest in giving a thousand year life span to humans as the babylonians gave tens of thousands.
There is nothing that can be confined to period between 5500 to 3500, even the history of mesopotamia.How refreshing. Thank you for the effort, Jomine.
First, the Hebrew word translated as city does not mean anything like a homestead or farm. It specifically means 'city'. You're right, in the context that Adam/Eve were the first humans ever, it hardly makes sense to say Cain built a city. But if read to mean the Gen1 humans were actually humans created before Adam/Eve, who had already populated the planet by the time Adam/Eve were created, it makes a lot more sense. As does the notion of Cain finding a wife and fearing 'others' that would harm him.
Not a worldwide flood. Think about it. How could people from 3000+ years ago report on a flood that covered all the Earth? All the Earth as far as they were speaking was all the Mesopotamian valley.
Interesting fact, stringed instruments, including the lute, were invented in Sumer. Also, one of those other tribes, the ones that lived in tents and kept livestock, matches up exactly with what archaeologists have determined was one of the founding groups of Sumer...
"The Sumerian city of Eridu, on the coast of the Persian Gulf, was the world's first city, where three separate cultures fused — that of peasant Ubaidian farmers, living in mud-brick huts and practicing irrigation; that of mobile nomadic Semitic pastoralists living in black tents and following herds of sheep and goats - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer
In other words, specifically addressed things about Cain's descendants can be lined up directly with Sumer. Not a coincidence.
The flood that both Genesis and the Sumerian King's List refer to happened in 4000BC. It ended the Ubaid culture and soon after the Uruk culture began. Uruk was established closer to 4000BC...
"Uruk gave its name to the Uruk period, the protohistoric Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age period in the history of Mesopotamia spanning c. 4000 to 3100 BC, succeeded by the Jemdet Nasr period of Sumer proper.- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk
It's assumed the Genesis flood tale was taken from the Sumerian/Babylonian versions of the flood story because they're older. The other explanation is that it really happened, and that's why both the Sumer/Babylonian version and Genesis talk about it. Same goes for long lifespans, a story of a once universal language confused into many, etc.
Thank you for the informed response. It's a nice change.That is the way I always read it too. I have wondered if Adam was a culmination of all of them, that a human had achieved a higher sentience, at that stage and God began to reach out to that mind that only then had the ability to perceive Him through that mind. Sometimes I think that eating from the tree is an allegory of that raised awareness, yet a loss of innocence in that man as they became a subjective moral agent.
Once it had reached that higher sentience or capability of a higher self awareness, and becoming an autonomous subjective moral agent, there became a separation from its natural communion with nature or God, yet in that new separated state, it could have freewill and would be capable of relationship by its own choice.
Yes, exactly. We today think of our bodies as a separate thing from our minds. The body is a mystery to us that we must learn over time. We make a distinction between what is 'natural' and what is 'man-made'. This development had to happen somewhere along the way in our evolution. There's evidence to indicate this separation happened first in the Ubaid culture of Mesopotamia around 4000 BC. There are books dedicated to this...
- 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
"The Fall, then, refers to a change which occurred in the psyche of certain human groups around 6,000 years ago. It was the point in history when these peoples developed a strong and sharp sense of ego. The Fall was, and is, the intensification of the human sense of "I" or individuality." - Steve Taylor, The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of A New Era
"the great change - a change so great, indeed, that nothing in all we know of human cultural evolution is comparable in magnitude." - Riane Eisler, American Scholar, Cultural Historian
This is the change introduced that the stories of Genesis are describing. Adam was the first being with a will separate from God's, making him capable of behaving in ways contrary to God's will. From that point on in the story humans more and more behave in ways contrary to God's will.
In Gen1 the humans created there were commanded to 'be fruitful and multiply' and to 'fill/subdue the earth'. Commands that would take generations to carry out. And these humans, along with everything else in creation, God deemed 'good'. This could not be Adam/Eve. They couldn't be counted on to carry out God's will because they couldn't even follow the one rule given to them in the garden.That's what the garden story is depicting. What made Adam/Eve different from the rest of creation."We today think of our bodies as a separate thing from our minds."
Not true; only the believers think there is a separate "soul" that comes out and flies off into the sunset. The mind may be spoken of as a part of us, but it is no more a separate part than a leg or arm is.This is how the mind naturally views the body. It's a mystery to us. We learn over time all its peculiarities. We don't know inherently what it's doing. The way it heals or the way it reacts to things. Our ego feels like a separate thing.
God created MAN, Adam means man. The second chapter is summarising it in a different order, there also he created man thrn separated women from him.
That is why I asked whether you mean metaphorical by literal? Literally world is world.
The same is also the condition in Uruk. Cain's descendants is described as lute players while eridu and uruk contained tent dwellers, pastoralists (that is same for all ancient cities), and fishermen.
No one really know what ended the Ubaid period but there is no evidence of any flood there. There is some decline but in mesopotamia the Ubaid and uruk culture merges. Eridu started as a village in 5400BC and continued upto 2050 became a city in 2900. Uruk started around 4500 BC and continued till 300 to 600 CE.
The Sumerian stories were written down around 2300 BC, so the people have no way of knowing what happened 1700 years before. Moreover Judea was miles away from mesopotamia. But Judeans were carried of as settlers to babylon where such myths were continuing. After the old Mesopotamians the Akkadians continued the story. The story was there in middle east almost uninterrupted. So probably the entire Genesis story with God's sons marrying humans were a copy of babylonian myths. After all yahweh was also a later creation, it was El who did all these.
For me, its not possible to be religious and still believe in the science theories of evolution. Its either here or there. Personally, i chose religion cos it offers so much morethan just theories and few evidence. Religion is filled with mysteries. Mysteries are supernatural and supernatural is God.
Make believe might make you feel comfortable and keep charge of the minds of your congregation.... but it does not afford you the facility of an Internet and a motor car and medical technology to make your life more comfortable.
Try expanding your mind, Sir, to see that scientific study and research does not have to be separate from your needs to "believe" in mystery.Good point. When the "mysteries" of religion are investigated there are never any known right answers while the "mysteries" of chemistry, physics, astronomy and all the rest are studied answers are often available with enough work. The natural world, then, would seem to offer much more than the religious as we can find actually find truth. Of course, it is much easier to make up our own version...
I don't its possible. Because religious people don't believe in evolution of man saccording to science.
I do believe in God. I just don't believe we just pop into existence from some spring of water. Things just don't pop up. There is an explanation. Scientists just haven't discovered it. I'm saying we don't have the proof other than our own sensory perception. Because it's a difficult thing to prove but I can't say it's not one of the variables either. There is a deliberate designer to all of this and that designer sustains it. Call him, her, it what you will.
Hey all, sorry for the delay in responding. I got banned for a couple of days by the HP Police for "personal attacks and petty bickering in the forums". I have no idea what they're talking about so don't know how to avoid this in the future. It was something in this discussion as this is the only one I was participating in. Does anyone here feel I attacked them or bickered pettily?
Anyway, I'll respond where I can to try to catch back up.Sorry to hear that happened, Headly, but welcome back.
The details of your arguments can sometimes be frustrating to some commentators here, but I have never found you to employ personal attacks or petty bickering.
Sorry it happened to you, Headly. I've been there too - banned for no reason I could think of. The HP moderators have a really wide view of what constitutes a personal attack - it isn't just name calling.
And no, for the record I didn't think we were "bickering" at all, let alone "pettily".Sorry for that
According to the rules we can debate, so where do they draw the line?I'm just real careful not to call names. No "That's stupid!", no "You're a fool!". Just always keep it very, very clean and pleasant. Pretend you're talking to a judge on your trial case. Or maybe your beloved but aged grandmother.
Yeah, this is the second time it's happened to me. They did it over the weekend so I couldn't even get a response at first as far as what the reason was. I'm still not clear. When I finally did get a reply it was vague. And for the image of the HP mallcop to be smiling is just that much more infuriating.
Twice for me, too. The second time I was able to get confirmation that it was because of a specific post. Never did agree with them, but the gods had spoken (
) and I did learn; it hasn't happened again for several years now.
I do not see anything where science and my personal beliefs are at odds, keeping with the topic of the thread.
Since you asked: to speculate on this other stuff I bet it was when Wilderness said someone was "spouting nonsense" and then you used pretty much his own words.It seems, just like we are interested in writing in the forums, the hub police is interested in banning.
Is this why a good number of people left hubpages? Will I be banned for this, I wonder!
For those of you who like science, Science states people who believe in God/Religious, etc are happier than people who don't. And that's my two cents on science and God. It's all beliefs anyway. I have a background and education in science- it's a very flawed process so I don't put all my eggs in that basket. I'd rather go with my gut.
Does that make any sense? That something described in a different order could be a summary? Why summarize in a different order? It's in a different order because it's not the same event. Yes, Adam was a 'man', just not the first man.
Again, how could people from 3000 years ago, who didn't know the full extent of what 'world' even meant, mean the whole world?
"The level of the great flood at Ur was sandwiched between remains of the Al Ubaid cultural phase, the last purely prehistoric period of southern Mesopotamia, and a layer of debris from the early Protoliterate period." - http://ncse.com/cej/8/2/flood-mesopotam … l-evidence
There's specific reasoning why the Ubaid and Uruk cultures are counted as two distinct cultures, though they were both very similar. There is a definite break between them and separation. There is evidence at some of the sites excavated to show a flood played a role in the end of the Ubaid.
Yes, the stories were written down much later, which makes it all the more incredible that the stories can be matched up with such a high degree of accuracy with what actually happened so long before.
Yes, what the Sumerians called 'El' is the same being the Jews referred to as 'YAHWEH'.That doesn't make sense for as I already said, the book is riddled with contradictions. The book says it's the summary and eve means "mother of all".
You are the one who insist that it is literal. Certainly the Sumerian know world is more than sumer and constituted india. When bible eas written Asia, Europe and Africa was known. There never was a flood to that extent.
What according to you is Genesis story? Though you say it is literal your story vary very much.
But HeadlyvonNoggin that flood took place in 3500. Ubaid ended in 4100 and if you stretch it 3800. Uruk culture was already in place then. Moreover the flood took place in Ur not Eridu.
In modern Oman and near places the culture ended due to drought not flood. It is kike Roman culture giving way to Christian in Eridu.
The stories were written down and was copied, so where is the miracle? There is no accuracy either.
The Sumerian never called god yahweh. Moreover bible itself says yahweh is son of El.She's the mother of all of those that have free will. Everyone who came from her has a will free of God's.
The story I'm talking about is Genesis 2-11, which includes the flood and Babel. These events, including the city Cain built in Gen4 line up with actual events in southern Mesopotamia. Yes, I mean they literally happened. The people of Mesopotamia couldn't comment on the flood reach across Asia or India. They can only speak of their own valley. That is their whole world.
What evidence we have is very limited and very dated as this area is in modern day Iraq. But the flood evidence Whooley found literally capped off the Ubaid culture. As in Ubaid artifacts were found below it and Uruk culture artifacts above it. The silt deposit literally ran right between the two. And as you said, there's no other explanation for why the Ubaid ended.
Like you said, the Sumerian stories were written down around 2300BC. Yet the bible tells of events that happened between about 5500BC to 4500BC. These events line up with the timeline of Genesis down to the number of centuries inbetween. Events that took place up to 3000+ years before the benefit of a written record retain that level of accuracy.
Right. The one the Sumerians would have known as "El" the Jews knew as "YAHWEH". Where does the bible say YAHWEH is the son of El?There is no statement that she is the mother of people with free will. Moreover normal human beings are here for tens of thousands of years.
It do not contact anything like it.
the story says god created man, his son built a city and whole humans except a few were killed.
There was no flood reaching India.
The flood evidence points 3500BC not 4000BC end of Ubaid. You did not read the article or similar others. There is a 300 year overlap.
According to you it happened in 4000 though actually it is 3500, so where is the line up? What is there for the line up?
deuteronomy and psalms.
That's where being able to ground the stories in actual history prove beneficial. We know, as the story actually supports, that the world was already populated. According to Genesis Abraham was born just under 2000 years after Adam's creation. Because Abraham's father was from Sumer and because Abraham interacted with Egyptians, we know Adam's creation couldn't have been any earlier than roughly 5500BC. The world was already populated by that time.
The humans in Gen1 could not have been Adam/Eve because those humans were given specific commands that would take generations to carry out and God included them in deeming all He had made 'good'. Adam/Eve showed right from the start their capability to behave contrary to God's will. So they could not be expected to carry out these commands, and they certainly would not have been included in the 'good' camp.
The 'living' here refers to those born of Eve. Those capable of behaving according to their own will. Clearly she is not the mother of those 'others' Cain feared encountering when he was banished. Clearly she wasn't the mother of his wife.
Their point of view was the valley they lived in. They could not comment on the state of India. They could not see India, and no one from India could report back whether or not it was flooded. They could only speak of their valley.
The more you read about this flood the more you'll find that each reference dates it differently. But what they're consistent about is it being at the end of the Ubaid. The Ubaid ended about 4000BC. Plus, both Genesis and the Sumerian King's List state the flood happened just before the building of Uruk, which was right at 4000BC as well.
I haven't found what you're talking about. I have found places where God refers to Himself as 'El Shidiah' and other similar things. And plenty to support that 'El' and God are one and the same. "Father of the gods". Before the Jews learned God's name as 'YAHWEH' He was often referred to as 'El...' something. 'El' simply means God.Which is actual historical event you refer to?
So what you are saying is the bible story is all wrong. God created a man and woman although there were other humans. That man's son made a city with people from different group and that city was destroyed and everyone in that city died except that son's one descendant?
They knew there were other cities, then how come world became their city? And many did survive to write stories and rebuild cities.
Eridu started as a settlement un 5400BC became a city in 2900 BC. Uruk established itself as a city in 4500BC. There was a flood in Ur in 3500BC and 2700BC. Ubaid period ended in 4100BC. Uruk became prominent by 4100BC. There was no flood in Eridu in this time. The first major flood that involved multiple major cities occured in 2900BC after which arouse the flood stories.. No scholarly journal attribute a flood for the end of Ubaid but do attribute drought.
There was flood myths in other mythology too. Because genesis story is a copy of babylonian story it has similarities, while other stories are entirely different.
I think it was 32 and psalm 82, not in a position to refer at the moment. "When El divided the world among his sons, yahweh got Israel as his share"(deuteronomy) and about a counsel held by el attended by yahweh in psalms.
No, I'm saying the bible story is right. It's not that Adam/Eve were the first humans, it's that they were the first humans with free will. That's what's significant about them and what the garden story is pointing out. That they're capable of behaving contrary to God's will, unlike anything else God created as the creation story illustrates. Everything, animate or inanimate, becomes exactly what God wills in creation.
The flood was local and was meant to take out the 'gods'. The descendants of Adam/Eve who had procreated with mortal humans. This introduced free will into humanity and is what caused the 'wickedness' that warranted the flood. Because these existed in the valley only flooding the valley was necessary.
That's what the beginning of Gen6 is talking about when it says the 'sons of God' found the 'daughters of humans' beautiful and had children by them. It's this intermingling that warranted the flood....
Genesis 6:2 - That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Their offspring were the Nephilim. The "heroes of old, men of renown".
Keep in mind you're reading the english translation. The same word translated as 'world' is translated elsewhere as 'land'. All the world can also be translated as all the land. Because bible translators assume a global flood, they use the more global translation of words. Land becomes world and hills become mountains.
"Uruk gave its name to the Uruk period, the protohistoric Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age period in the history of Mesopotamia spanning c. 4000 to 3100 BC, succeeded by the Jemdet Nasr period of Sumer proper.
The Uruk period comes immediately after the Ubaid at 4000BC.
Flood evidence is very limited. The last time anyone could really look into it was the 1920's. But Whooley finding a silt deposit sandwiched between Ubaid and Uruk layers is telling. As is the correlation with both Genesis and the Sumerian King's List.
There was a drought as well, at 3900BC, known as the 5.9 kiloyear event. This event caused massive migrations like what the Babel story describes. And it lead directly to the formation of multiple civilizations...
"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
This is the event the Babel story is referring to.
It's assumed Genesis copies the Sumerian texts because the Sumerian texts are older. Another explanation is that both are speaking of actual events and that is why they match.
I'll have to do more reading on this, but the consensus of what I've read so far seems to attribute it to confusion regarding the polytheistic nature of the early scriptures. Early Genesis speaks of other gods. Like the gods the people of Sumer, Abraham's father's people, worshipped. My theory is that the long-living descendants of Adam/Eve were the ones spoken about in the various mythologies of the region as gods. This is why YAHWEH/EL is said to be the "father of the gods".1. Genesis do not say anything about free will but say " .this is the history of heaven and earth as they are created...... there was no man .....lord formed man from dust". It says they were the first humans, not first humans with free will.
2. So the present humans with free will are descendants of Adam. Men colonised America and Australia and China and India before 5000 BC and modern humans didn't mingle with Americans and Australians, so are they devoid of free will?
3. There is no difference between humans 5000 years before and 10000 years before, so what is this free will?
4.Now you are contradicting yourself,you said bible is literal and now says each word means differently. Literal means exactly as it is written.
The word for "world" is "Kishastum"(mesopotamians) and that is the word used and so they clearly were stating "world" flood not local flood. And Mesopotamians had trade link with India.
The last time anyone looked into it was 1929 and that findings are discredited now.But forget that, there was NO flood in Eridu, all the materials are from Ur ONLY. There is nothing to suggest that Ubaid period was ended by a flood and not only that it ended at various times at various cities, it varies from 4500 - 3800. As I already said Uruk established it self at 4500 BC, the Uruk culture started from then. And it is that drought which you said as the cause of babel is actually what put an end of Ubaid. These drought cause total abandonment of area in and around modern Oman and East Arabia.
But there was a major flood including Shuruppak and that was what gave rise to the flood stories.
They cannot speak about the same events because there were no jews at that time. Jews went to babylon as slaves and heard the stories and when they made their religion simply copied the stories of the superior culture. Solomon is from Shulmanu, Assyrian for Solomon/Sulaiman.
It is simply the copies from other stories as there is NO god and Adam is pure mythology.
Biblical version:
Answer: The seared conscience is referred to in 1 Timothy 4:2 where Paul talks about those whose consciences—their moral consciousness—have been literally “cauterized” or rendered insensitive in the same way the hide of an animal scarred with a branding iron becomes numb to further pain. For human beings, having one’s conscience seared is a result of continual, unrepentant sinning. Eventually, sin dulls the sense of moral right or wrong, and the unrepentant sinner becomes numb to the warnings of the conscience that God has placed within each of us to guide us (Romans 2:15).
My version:
I truly don't believe it's our place to judge or to change someone's belief. If someone doesn't believe then they just don't. If someone does, then they just do. We all have the freedom to do either. We all live by our own beliefs. What works for you, it works for you. May we equally be satisfied in our choices. Theoretically speaking no one knows based on Darwin, Scientists, Bible and or Religions. Too many unanswered questions. This is a lot of text over something that doesn't exist. Don't you think? When you do not believe in the existence of God, he must hound you? God haunts you and works on you until you do. He shows up in your work, your home, your hobbies and wherever you go. Why? Because he exists in you. It's sort of like your conscience. When you get up in the morning and when you lay down. It's just right there with you. Then when you try to look for scientific clues as to his nonexistence, he shows up there as well. It's hilarious! Maybe it's not for everyone. Maybe some don't feel anything at all. Maybe when they wake up, they just do. Without a care in the world and no thoughts of any kind of a God or higher power. Maybe some feel power within themselves and the thought of someone above is imaginary or even ridiculous. Maybe they don't believe in any magic, signs, wonders or miracles. Maybe the thought of a heaven or hell is too much. That somehow when they die, that it's the final straw and that's enough for them. Maybe that leaning on their own understanding and intellect of things is all there will ever be. As for me and my house....1. It does not say they were the first humans. First humans were created in Gen1, then Adam/Eve in Gen2. The description you're speaking of is specific to a region. That region of the world went through many climate changes in that age. When God created Adam it was dry, as described, and devoid of any human presence, as described.
It doesn't specifically say "free will", but it illustrates it clearly in that Adam/Eve were capable of behaving contrary to God's will. From that point forward the central theme of the story is that humans are out of sync with God's will and often act contradictory to it. This is only possible through free will.
2. Yes, native Americans and Australians lacked free will. This is why indigenous cultures are so different. They live in harmony with nature, don't prize personal possessions, and don't feel inclined to alter their environment. The entirety of human history tells the story of how humans from those first civilizations wiped out indigenous cultures. This is the rise of free will.
3. There is a significant difference between humans before and after roughly 4000BC. It started first in Mesopotamia and spread from there. A psychological change that's equated in modern times as the emergence of the modern human ego. An intensified sense of "I". This change can be seen in the evidence and was spoken about by multiple cultures. this change is documented in these two books ...
- '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
4. Bible is literal, as in the original Hebrew. How it's translated is too open to interpretation by the translators themselves. Not a contradiction.
The word used most often is 'Artz', which means both 'world' and 'land'. Again, they couldn't know the status of India, but because of the curvature of the Earth, from their perspective, the flood waters would have appeared to have stretched from horizon to horizon.
Exept that flood doesn't line up with what the Sumerians directly claim. The one they speak of happened just before Uruk was established. And as the reference said I quoted from before, that was around 4000BC. 4500BC was still during the Ubaid period, before Uruk.
Yes, that drought caused total abandonment, but that doesn't mesh with what you said about the various times at various cities.
Jews weren't established as such until Abraham's descendants. They just eventually came to be the ones with the stories. The stories predate them. The events are actual history, so they match because they're both talking about the same series of events.
Except that everything we should expect to see if the stories are literally true, including Adam, is there in our history. Every bit of it.In genesis one god created Adam, in Genesis 2 also he created Adam, man literally. So you mean god again created a new man or he gave free will to man? It do not say it was dry but says god had not caused rain or created man and a mist was WATERING the earth. And sons of adam are sons of god is your interpretation only. Why did God call Adam and Eve "mankind" if they were different from Humans? How is all "high hills under the whole heaven" a small region hardly 10 sq km?
That does not make it free will, but that certainly make god either an idiot or sadist.
That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard,that native Americans and Australians lack free will, whatever that is. So you are essentially saying that they are different from modern Humans(they have different languages too,though they were never any wear near babel). The rest of what you have written is totally out of sync with history. They were wiped out because of the new diseases introduced against which the natives lacked immunity and because of the superior weaponry of Spanish. The first Europeans who went there before Columbus were driven away by the natives.
Ego? Old psychology!! It started independently in mesopotamia, India,China and Egypt, America, if it is culture you mean.
Can you explain by stating the original and its meaning then ?
Most often, not always. The had trade links with India. They had trade with each other. So a single city flood they will surely know that is not "world" wide.
That is mythology, not history. According to history, there was no flood in these periods. (from your own reference)
It says there was drought, not floods during the long period of transition.
They match because they are copies. According to history a city is not started by a single person. What is that story that match history? Eridu was founded in 5400 BC. There was no flood in Eridu in 4000, became a city only 2900 BC. Uruk was established as a city in 4500 bt came to prominence only in 4100 BC the year of the beginning of uruk period.Ubaid period ended in 3800 BC. So there is a 300 year overlap. The major flood occurred in 2800 BC after which the flood myths appeared. There was a different language in contemporary India.
If the stories are literally true, but they are not. Even you have to discount and changes various words and had to propose that the many translators do not know their job.
You still haven't told me what your version of genesis story is. Is it Adams children who were killed or only Cain's? Noah is Adam's descendant or Cain's?
Literally it should be all earth not a small region.To the Amer-indians and Australian aborigines you can add the Chinese (some of whom migrated to the new world without having free will) and the Europeans who lived in harmony with nature by wiping out the Neanderthals, again without the free will to do so.
You might also look at the effect the early Americans had on the mammoth as they "lived in harmony with nature". Or the Ancestral Pueblo tribe and the Anasazi that didn't "feel inclined to alter their environment" as they chiseled homes into the cliff faces and built ladders to get to them.Nope. Chinese got free will introduced the same way as everyone else. Please, check out those books I referred you to. DeMeo, the author of Saharasia, refers to 'fallen' cultures as Patrist, where 'un-fallen' cultures are 'Matrist'. Male dominance, personal possessions, slavery, land ownership, organized militaries, violent behaviors and tendencies towards other humans and one another, that sort of thing. Chinese cultures showed signs of Patrism very early on. Cultures that did not were those hard to reach due to geographic restrictions. Like Africa south of the Sahara and Australia and the Americas for quite a long while. But they eventually got to those places as well.
Rule of thumb, if other species of animals do it, probably doesn't require free will. Hunting and eating other animals doesn't require free will. Building a home doesn't require free will. Altering their environment would be more along the lines of re-routing river water and that sort of thing.I fully agree that the Chinese got free will the same way everyone else did. And it happened thousands of years before Adam existed - we can know this because they used that free will to cross the Bering Strait land bridge.
You might consider as well that male dominance has nothing to do with free will; it has everything to do with muscle power in ancient peoples. To tie male dominance to "fallen" cultures, slavery and all the other "undesirable" events while tying female dominance to "unfallen" cultures, all by making up loaded terminology...well, it says a lot about the writer. But that's personal opinion; we were discussing free will, and nothing in that list belongs in the discussion. Unless you want to talk about the destruction of the Neanderthals some 40,000 years ago? Or who did or did not own the spear point 50,000 years ago? The fortified settlement in Europe dated to 4700 BC, before Greek civilization? Cemetery 117 in Sudan, where 40% of the bodies show they died from spear/arrow wounds...14,000 years ago? Aztec slavery, without influence from Adam's progeny?
But back to Free will: Using tools to chip out solid rock to make a home has never been witnessed in animals; it must be free will. Ditto for building ladders. Using manufactured tools has never been seen in animals, but was done by people in Ohio some 15,000 years ago. And in South Africa 500,000 years ago. Never has an animal painted a picture - cave drawings in France are 30,000 years old. Animals don't make musical instruments; the oldest known (a "flute" made from bone) was made in Germany some 43,000 years ago. Animals don't make cloth; the oldest cloth fibers were found in the Republic of Georgia and are 34,000 years old.
Free will. Many, many thousands of years before Adam.Migrating is something else that doesn't require a free will. Many species do it. Most migrating humans did came from following where the food was. They were coaxed all around the world by climate changes. Making and using tools to make a home is just a reflection of a more capable brain. But the behavior is still much like other species of animals. Not unlike how woodpeckers use their beaks or primates use sticks to fish ants out of their mounds.
Actually you should look up painting elephants. They can actually paint pictures that are recognizable as images of elephants. Watch this and prepare to have your mind blown ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk
Taking out the Neanderthal and making spearheads also does not require free will. That's survival. Competition.
None of this constitutes free will. A free will gives you a stronger sense of being an individual and your place on this earth. Male dominance has everything to do with free will because a free will makes one feel disconnected from nature. Men are more capable of disconnecting from nature than females because females are tethered by nursing, birthing, menstrual cycles, etc. All the things men of 'fallen' cultures began to treat as 'gross'.
Nope free will didn't show up until around 4000BC. The invention of mathematics and astronomy are indicators. Written language is an indicator. As these come about out of a need to understand the world around us. A need to record what's owed to us. Individuality. Like humans getting the idea in their heads that even though the Earth has been here long before us, we actually have the gall to say this piece of land is 'mine'. It belongs to me.Sorry, crossing the Bering Strait during an ice age certainly took free will. A wanderlust, if you will, as there was no food where they went. Don't forget - they went North, into the teeth of bad weather, not south into warmer climes.
I've seen the painting elephants, very carefully trained. Now show me one that does it of their own "free will".
The Neanderthals were murdered by other people; one of the things you put down to free will. And there it was, long before you think it existed.
No, you've made it very clear that your idea on free will constitutes a departure from nature. It separates you from nature, not gives you a place there. And cloth, weapons, artificial tools and homes all do a very good job of it.
Yep, free will existed thousands upon thousands of years prior to Adam. Just like the violence, construction, slavery, and fortifications did - all things you attribute to free will yourself.
Or do you now want to try a different definition of free will again? Violence, slavery, male dominance - all of the things you attributed to free will - existed long before Adam and fail utterly to make your case. Try again? Or is the new claim that free will now requires mathematics, written language and astronomy? That would be funny!
(I like your land ownership - most animals will fight, to the death if necessary, to keep "their" land and keep competitors off of it. Nearly all carnivores and most omnivores such as lions, tigers, bears, chimpanzees, wolves, panthers, etc. exhibit this behavior as well as some herbivores. Some will even kill the young, and even their own young, to protect "their" land. They must have free will, yes?)Haha.. a wonderlust, huh? Well, I have another suggestion, but you're not going to like it. The humans in Genesis 1 were told to 'be fruitful and multiply' and to 'fill and subdue the Earth'. Which is exactly what homo sapiens did. In a really rather short amount of time. Not only did they fill the Earth, not only did they manage to adapt to every environment along the way, but where ever they went mega fauna disappeared. Sabre toothed cat, mammoths, huge mammals. They and Neanderthals proved to be very apt hunters of large game. They literally pushed megafauna, like the Neanderthal, into extinction. They got rid of the competition and ate all the huge mammals all along the way. In fact, hunting megafauna might have been what coaxed them over the Baring Straight. Plus, there were periods where the ocean's sea level was quite low. And it actually wouldn't have to be that low to expose the landbridge. It was most likely above sea level. But, yeah, anyway, basically these humans were most likely compelled by the commands of God, unable to not adhere due to a lack of free will, and accomplished exactly what they were told to do in roughly 20.000 years or so.
Wilderness, I want you to just take a minute and think about how exactly you'd go about training an elephant to paint a recognizable picture of an elephant. Just think about that.
Violence against the Neanderthal's not the same. They were a competing species. They shared the same prey, the same needs. That's just life. That's nature. But it's not just me pointing out the significant lack of evidence of violence between humans ....
""it is an error, as profound as it is universal, to think that men in the food-gathering stage were given to fighting... All available facts go to show that the food-gathering stage of history must have been one of perfect peace." - WJ Perry, Archaeologist
"For the first ninety-five thousand years after the Homo sapiens Stone Age began, there is no evidence that man engaged in war on any level, let alone on a level requiring organized group violence. There is little evidence of any killing at all." - Richard Gabriel, Anthropologist
"There is the same lack of evidence for violent conflict throughout the simple horticultural period of history as in the hunter-gather era. Graves don't contain weapons; images of warfare or weapons are still absent from artwork; and villages and towns aren't situated in inaccessible places or surrounded by defensive walls." - Steve Taylor, The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of a New Era
As for slavery....
"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
"We also find what seem to be the world's first ever instances of slavery. Archaeologists have discovered that, at some earlier Indo-European sites, the female population was mainly made up of Old European women. This suggests that, as they invaded Old European sites, the Indo-Europeans killed the men and children but spared some girls and women, who became their concubines or slaves" - Steve Taylor, The Fall
All throughout the food gathering stage, through the discovery of farming, there was no violence and no slavery. Both came about when the first civilizations did. Eridu, the first city of the Ubaid culture, is the first place ever that had class stratification where all were not equal.
Why such a cynical view of me? Why do you expect me to change course and deliberately try to be misleading or dishonest? I'm not changing anything. What you think you "got me" with is factually inaccurate. Slavery was invented around 4000BC. Before that there weren't even classes, much less a slave "class".
As for animals being territorial, it's not the actual land they're territorial over. It's whatever land they are on and their family is on. They don't take ownership of the land and restrict entry to anyone else.
Here's a reference from DeMeo's website I found that shows the characteristics of each type of behavior ...
(if it doesn't get shrunk too small to be readable)
If you can't read it you can find this table here ... http://www.orgonelab.org/saharasia_en.htmCan you define "Patrism" and "Matrism" (no dictionary I found had anything on it)? And what "armored/un-armored" means here (I understand that "armored" generally means wearing of a garment to deflect weapons, whether physical or mental)?
Or is this just a list of attributes the author uses to define those terms? If so I stand by my comment earlier; it says a lot that a made up word, a new terminology, would be so obviously loaded (an attempt to arouse the emotions rather than reason).
Truthfully, it very much sounds like he's trying to use the terms "patriarchal" and "matriarchal" but knows that it won't fly with what he wants to put into it.Surely the extremes of patriarchy and matriarchy say nothing for the reality of life, where there is normally a little bit of each to temper the resultant society.
(Sorry, should have said "...isms.")Which is why "patrism" and "matrism" appear to have been used. The author wishes to make a new word, with a new definition, but still keep the connotations and the emotional appeal of the old words. So makes new ones that sound similar, sound as if they actually DO impart some information beyond the definition he attempts to impart to his newly minted words.
As I said earlier, it is only my opinion, but when I think someone is trying to influence me via emotional means rather that straight, unspun data I become defensive and doubting.
It would probably be helpful to first explain armoring. Armoring is a psychological concept conceived by Wilhelm Reich, a psychiatrist/psychoanalyst. His concept was that what he called armouring is what the mind does when dealing with hardship. DeMeo's whole theory behind the behavior change is that the transformation of the Sahara into a desert caused this response in those dealing with the hardship of drought and responding with these behaviors. Like those on that list I provided. It has to do with denying the pleasure seeking impulses like eating/comfort/etc.
DeMeo graphed the worldmap, then visited humerous cultures all throughout the map to find evidence to determine whether they are matrist or patrist. Are they male-dominant? Are they repressed about sexual practices? Do they mutilate their genitalia? This checklist of behaviors that divide the two primary groups. A definite pattern can be seen. He illustrates, ad nauseum, through collected evidence, that there is a very distinct pattern showing this behavior change as starting in Mesopotamia during the Ubaid culture and spreading literally throughout the world from there. That's why it's called 'Saharasia'. Basically it's the Saharasians and their more aggressive nature that perpetuated these new behaviors and completely transformed the whole of the world's population. Steve Taylor uses this, but differs slightly in his theory of the cause. He thinks these behavior changes are the result of humans, again starting in the Ubaid, to have evolved a more prominent ego.
Those terms are just a form of shorthand to distinguish one group from the other. It's easier to discuss if you assign a name to each. Nothing anymore sinister than that going on here. Patriarchal refers to male-dominated societies, Matriarchal the women have equal power. That's why he's using those particular terms.First, matriarchal societies don't put women equal to men; they put them above men. The real political power resides in women.
But forget that - it's immaterial to anything. I understand the armor, just wasn't positive that was what was being referred to.
But, same as before, I have to disagree that these societies "spread throughout the world from Mesopotamia". Most older cultures were male dominated, some had slaves, etc. Indeed, most of what he uses to define patrism applies to patriarchal societies in general and those were common throughout the world prior to the Mesopotamian society. They also applied to societies that could not have been influenced by Mesopotamia, such as the Americas, Australia, early Asia and Europe.
That a few of those attributes spread from Mesopotamia (foreskin removal, for instance) is indisputable - that most of them existed without influence is also indisputable. Just as that some of later societies that DID originate in the area did not have some of the attributes is also indisputable (Rome, for instance, was NOT an ascetic civilization).
The bottom line is once again that what you're saying is overall correct, but does not provide any support whatsoever for the idea of a god that gave mankind free will. Or fed him knowledge or even a sense of right and wrong. Only that Mesopotamia was a very early civilization that spread to much (but far from all) of the world. Understandable, as it WAS very early in man's development.""There does not exist any clear, compelling or unambiguous evidence for the existence of patrism anywhere on Earth significantly prior to c.4000 BCE." - James Demeo
"The 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
Again I stress, this isn't about proving God exists. This is showing what's described in Genesis actually happened. That these are not just real events, but they're the actual events that set the modern human world in motion.
Just check out Saharasia. There's ample information, the evidence is clearly defined to show what signifies what. There's such consistency in human behavior that the entirety of human culture can be assigned to one of two groups. And there's a definite progression that starts in the Ubaid and truly spreads globally.If patrism isn't found anywhere else in the world, it's because it is defined specifically to fit one, and only one, culture. Broaden that definition just a tiny bit and you'll find a lot more. That doesn't lend much credibility to the theory.
But I do continue to question just why you so adamantly ignore the rest of the world; cultures that had no relationship with that small section of the planet. And cultures which very plainly give the lie to the idea that Mesopotamia was the only place on earth that had such a culture. I've given you example after example showing that your claim that certain things happened only there is false, but they are adamantly ignored (or you comment that they don't count, presumably because they don't fit the desired conclusion).
"This is showing what's described in Genesis actually happened."
You keep saying that, but get quite defensive when it is pointed out that what is described in genesis is that a god took specific actions. Take the god out of the equation and, while it still fits the observed events, you're not happy at all. If it isn't about showing evidence for a god, why does it matter whether natural or supernatural?I have backed up each thing I've said with quotes from experts. Where's the support for your claim that they're wrong?
It matters whether natural or supernatural because natural can be proven. Supernatural, by definition, falls outside of the jurisdiction of science. So it's pointless to try to discuss. There are significant truths to recognize about this story being accurate. A lot to consider. This is the foundation modern society is built atop of. It's important to recognize it for what it is.What do you think I've said that is wrong? Do you deny the Aztecs kept slaves (only happens with patrism)? That cave art happened long ago (only happens with free will)? That people killed each other (war) before Adam (only in Patrist societies)?
Unfortunately, you seem to just gloss over these kind of instances that disprove your theory of a god changing man, but don't bother to mention that you find them false-to-fact. If I've said something that isn't true, let me know what and I'll provide evidence.
OK - it's pointless to discuss if you can show a god changed mankind by creating Adam and Eve. Or the garden. Or had a hand in Babel. So let's move on from that and forget about showing a god. Accept that biblical stories of gods taking action are unprovable and quit trying to do so.I've given you multiple quotes of archaeologists talking about the notable lack of violence. The emergence of civilizations in Sumer and elsewhere are widely noted as being one of the most violent ages in human history. It's widely recognized as the beginning of slavery, the beginning of male-dominance.
Limited examples of violence doesn't disprove the overall lack of violence. There can and most likely will be limited cases. After all, dolphins are known to sometimes kill each other. Nature can be rough like that. I'm not glossing over anything. I'm recognizing the bigger overlying truth.
The stories themselves are provable. And if they're actual history then we have an obligation to prove or disprove them. It's part of our origin story. If it's true then these things need to be known. It's the same search for truth.OK - I've already stipulated that the culture was a very early one, that it was among the first to be patriarchal (if you claim the very first, you're going to have to show that cavemen were matriarchal), and that it was perhaps more violent that prior civilizations in that area.
I do NOT stipulate that any culture exhibiting these attributes had contact with the Sumerians - instead I've said that they did not. That such things have developed independently over and over, and given examples. Do you doubt that that happened?
If your claim is that we have only limited examples of violence it puts you square into the camp of anti-evolutionists that demand a 100% complete fossil record of every organism that ever lived. Remember, you're talking pre-history here, where evidence is scarce.Alright, how's this ....
"There does not exist any clear, compelling or unambiguous evidence for the existence of patrism anywhere on Earth significantly prior to c.4000 BCE." - James Demeo
"my own research indicates that almost all indigenous peoples, if not all at one time, were matrilineal societies before the European conquest and colonization." - M.A. Jaimes Guerrero, Anthropologist
As for "having contact with the Sumerians" there are two books dedicated to exactly that that I referred you to. That's the crux of what they're proposing in those books and they're presenting the evidence to back it up. I encourage you to check them out. That's how any dominate evolutionary change would happen. It would appear in a particular group, then perpetuate from there. Patrist cultures are much more aggressive than Matrist and the change can be seen spreading to every continent in the world. That's why the title of that one is "Saharasia". Because those are the people that started it. Direct links to people from the Sahara region can be seen going into places like Egypt and transforming their culture.
You don't have to have 100% complete evidence to be able to recognize what the predominate characteristics of the vast majority are. If there's a common theme that's prevalent in most all places excavated, then that's good enough.""There does not exist any clear, compelling or unambiguous evidence for the existence of patrism anywhere on Earth significantly prior to c.4000 BCE." - James Demeo"
You're right - you don't need 100% evidence to recognize a predominate effect: the same things you list as "patrist" were common in cultures not associated with Sumeria. Perhaps no "clear, compelling or unambiguous evidence", but enough to say it was not uncommon.
""my own research indicates that almost all indigenous peoples, if not all at one time, were matrilineal societies before the European conquest and colonization." - M.A. Jaimes Guerrero, Anthropologist"
Or, paraphrasing, matrilineal societies were known before European conquest - it came and went with patrilineal and was not limited to just the one. Again, clear evidence, if not 100%, that it did not originate only in Sumeria.
But there is no common agreement the Sumerians visited the Americas at all, nor China nor Europe prior to the emergence of the characteristics we find there. They did not, therefore, have any effect on those older cultures, did not influence them to become patrist. Sumeria did not, for instance, influence the Vikings, nor the Aztecs. Yes, they almost certainly carried their culture to Egypt, but not to Northern Europe or the Americas until long after the attributes in your list were already found in those areas.
It's odd that you so completely ignore those societies - is it because they show the idea that patrism not only originated in Sumeria but in other areas as well? That it was repeated over and over throughout the world?The things listed as 'patrist' were common in other cultures, but not before Sumer. Sumer is notably the first culture that had class stratification.
There is clear evidence that it did originate in Sumer. Again, please refer to the books I listed. I'm not the only one saying it.
The Olmecs, the 'mother culture' of the Aztecs and other patrist cultures of north America, were brought that culture by pre-Columbian people from China.....
"... another possibility is that these "spots" of patrism were the result of the migrations of the Saharasian peoples into America in the pre-Columbian era. This is the approach which James DeMeo favors. He notes that there were three main patrist areas of the Americas:Caribean 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 may have arrived in the north-west Pacific first - possibly from Japan or China - and migrated southwards, displacing matrist cultures and painting further spots of patrism over the general background of matrism, until they reached middle america and then Peru. Evidence for this includes cultural similarities between Indians of the Pacific north-west and dynastic Chinese culture (such as artwork, clothing, drums and diet) and linguistic similarities. At the same time, there are cultural and linguistic similarities btween the three patrist areas of the Americas, suggesting that the peoples are related.
This theory is controversial, but it has gained some support from the Chinese archaeologist H.M. Xu. In his book 'The Origin of the Olmec Civilization' Xu suggests that, rather than being refugees from a desert area, the Olmecs were migrants from China.... He notes that around this time about 250,000 people disappeared, and suggests that at least some of these traveled to America. 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
See, I'm not ignoring them. They're included in this.Of course you are ignoring them. "He speculates that... " and uses for evidence that people originating in the same area have similar linguistics or clothing (difficult to understand in vastly different climates). It would not be surprising that people that long ago kept similar language for thousands of years - the pace of change was glacial in terms of modern rates of change.
But in any case, a highly controversial "speculation" is hardly evidence to solidly claim that the only people of the time that were patrist were in Sumeria or of Sumerian derivation. Same thing, in spades, goes for the theory that a quarter of a million people sailed the pacific in hollowed logs or rafts as Xu theorizes. Of course, remains of those ocean going vessels would go far toward providing at least some veracity to the claim...
You're trying to say that in only 2,000 years Sumerians not only migrated to China in sufficient numbers to change the culture there, but also crossed the Pacific Ocean (but not the Atlantic or Indian) in numbers sufficient to radically change the culture there as well. All because the bible says so and a few individuals, disagreeing with all other anthropologists, think it might have happened that way. And, of course, because the theory supports your own theories. I just can't seem to swallow that.
But we can go further, too. I've searched hard and found virtually no evidence supporting ANY specific type of society in pre-historic cultures. A handful of examples like Cemetary 117, but that's it. How, then, to you claim that all cultures prior to, and/or without contact with Sumeria, were not "patrist"? Were Matrilineal, did not do genital mutilation, were non-violent, were not class-oriented, did not have the beginnings of astronomy, etc.?I am not ignoring them. I'm pointing out the strong possibility that there's a real connection here. You're leaving out the other connection, the important one. The connection to people from China. The Olmecs being the 'mother culture' of the Aztecs and Mayans is a pretty solid thing, but that's not the point here. The connection to China ties these cultures to a region where free will/patrism existed. It makes the connection to explain those cultures of North America. The similarities in artwork, clothing, drums and diet between the Olmecs and ancient chinese culture goes a long way toward providing "at least some veracity to the claim".
The point is there continues to be evidence in every direction that supports the hypothesis can be true. The hypothesis that predicted it came first, then the evidence. It continues to line up.
It's not me claiming that all cultures were Matrist. It's archaeologists and anthropologists.I'm just not seeing that "strong possibility" when someone (that no one else agrees with) "speculates" that a quarter million people crossed the Pacific ocean 6,000 years ago.
There is absolutely a connection to the far east; that's where the Americas were populated from. Just something over 10,000 years ago, not 5,000. Similar diets happen when the food that is available is also similar; unlikely in moving from China to the Americas. Corn was the staple there, not rice, and even the fauna was different, and cotton was king where silk came from the far east.
There is always evidence something, anything, CAN be true. The same ET's that fed Sumeria knowledge and changed their DNA might have also visited the western hemisphere, after all. In this case though, the evidence that Sumerian culture was transplanted into the Americas doesn't have any real evidence to show it WAS true. Just speculation and hypothesis, backed up by next to no evidence at all.
And nothe "patrism" you've defined with that long list of attributes did not exist in China when some of the people there migrated to the Americas. "Free will" I can't speak to; you and I have very different ideas of what the term means and I've not figured out your definition yet.
You've done a good job, I think, in showing the Sumeria provided the culture for the near east, and strongly influenced that in Europe as well, but not the entire world. Other countries, other peoples, have made the same discoveries (mathematics, astronomy, government, writing, etc.); all the things you say came exclusively from Sumeria.Well the connections I'm pointing to strongly suggests a connection within the past 6000 years because the Sumerians were the first to invent astrology, yet the Olmecs had knowledge of astrology that mirrors that of China. Something China didn't have earlier than the Sumerians. In fact, all the similarities, other than diet, found between the two only existed in either culture, and all other known cultures, post 4000BC. And beyond that there are two distinct modes of behavior and a direct connection between interaction of cultures and the propagation of those Pastrist behaviors that ties these together. So not only do the similarities line up, but the behavior change further illustrates it.
That's absolutely not true that there's always evidence that anything can be true. Either the evidence supports this particular scenario or it doesn't. In this case it did over and over again. No matter how specific the prediction, exactly what was expected if true was found.
Why are you so dead set against this? I've given you the evidence. I've given you accredited people making statements that directly support it. So why so insistent that it isn't true?
That doesn't make sense. The humans in Gen1 couldn't be Adam. They were given commands that would take generations to carry out and Adam showed he couldn't be counted on for such a task. The humans in Gen1 were deemed 'good'. Also could not be Adam.
God created Adam just as it says. Only He created him in an already populated world. In that region it specifically names, between the rivers, it was dry and had not rained. So he caused it to rain and created the garden there. It specifies a specific region, it's not talking about the whole Earth.
Sons of God being the sons of Adam is not just my interpretation...
Luke 3:23-38 " And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.....son of David....son of Noah....son of Adam, son of God."
Everyone in the bloodline from Adam all the way through to Jesus was considered sons of God.
"Under the whole heaven", as in, from horizon to horizon. Here, read this ...
http://ncse.com/rncse/29/5/yes-noahs-fl … hole-earth (under section 'Effects of the Curvature of the Earth')
Wow. Idiot, huh? Not exactly. God created free will, as in a will apart from His. That was his intention. Without free will there's no need for commandments or judgement or anything else that central to the story. That's how an all-knowing God could actually 'regret' something, like it says just before the flood. Because humans have a will apart from His and did something He didn't anticipate. They mated with humans. Free will was the first element created by God not under His control. By design. He went through a whole lot of trouble to ensure we have our own minds and wills.
Superior weaponry. Exactly. Weapons and organized violence were created first in the civilizations of Sumer and the others that weren't specifically for hunting. There's a distinct behavior change noted in those books I referred you to. This is when humans developed a hightened sense of "I"....
"The Fall, then, refers to a change which occurred in the psyche of certain human groups around 6,000 years ago. It was the point in history when these peoples developed a strong and sharp sense of ego. The Fall was, and is, the intensification of the human sense of "I" or individuality." - Steve Taylor, The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of A New Era
"the great change - a change so great, indeed, that nothing in all we know of human cultural evolution is comparable in magnitude." - Riane Eisler, American Scholar, Cultural Historian
"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 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
Male dominance, private property, slavery, all of these things came about first in Sumer and spread from there. It's the result of a free will. Indigenous cultures had common behaviors. For one all were equal in their cultures. They also viewed all the Earth as belonging to all the living. It's only after free will that humans began to draw boundary lines. A change noticed by the Roman poet Ovid, among others ...
"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."
No, it is not culture. Though culture was one of the side-effects. Check out those books I referred you to. They cover this in great detail. There's plenty of evidence to back up exactly what I'm saying.
Uh, they were kind of flooded and unable to go check in on how India was doing.
Don't go by that one reference. You'll find a wide range of dates depending on what reference you read. The telling part is that the silt deposit Whooley found separated Ubaid strata from Uruk strata. Came right between them.
Yeah, and like the bible says the survivors of the flood, Noah's descendants, set up camp for a while, about a century, before Babel. Right there in that region. Buiilt a tower in fact. That tower, by the way, is in Eridu.
You assume their copies. Though they differ greatly in details, like the "flood heroes" ark. Totally different. Every reference I've seen dates Uruk after 4000BC, which coincides with the Uruk period, which also starts 4000BC. Ubaid ended 4000BC. 2800BC flood doesn't align with what the Sumerians claim in the King's List. They say it came just before Uruk.
The Sumerians claim Eridu was started by a god named Enki who just showed up one day. That's Cain. They say this god showed up, taught them the ways of civilization, formed a city, and made them the labor force.
I don't know. You say they're not literal truth, yet what should be expected is there if they were literal. I'm not changing anything. I just recognize the English translation is subject to interpretation when translated.
It was Adam's children and Cain's children. Everyone except Noah and his sons. God decided to spare Noah as He saw favorable traits in him and started over with him.{Sorry for not replying earlier, I was too busy}
That doesn’t make sense. Did I say it make sense? You are the one who try to make sense out of an ancient nonsense literature. In 1 and 2 god created “man”, adam in original language. And in Gen 2 he was created from DUST, no evolution.
It never said a word about already populated world. It specifically says god has not created man nor rain so he made a mist to water. If it is about a specific region, then 'history of "heaven and earth" and then "god planted eastward in Eden and put man there' will not make sense. .
This is another book that was written centuries later which has no bearing on the former.
The problem is that it didn’t even happen even on the whole middle east. Multiple floods spread out over multiple centuries over multiple cities. The greatest flood that occurred that covered multiple cities (multiple cities, not all cities) occurred in 2900BC, that does not require the survivors to build ships or collect all available animals including crows and doves.
That is a contradiction, if he is all knowing he cannot fail to anticipate.
The Americans or Australians had no connection with the rest of the world for tens of thousands of years, still all these were in those societies too. The Sumerians got it first only because they happened to be the first settlement. The first Europeans where expelled by native Americans only those who came with Columbus had superior weaponry(guns). Ancient cultures are as disparate as modern ones. Weapons were used by humns to kill other humans even before Sumerians. There was a war among the local tribes soon after the first contact in New Guinea which was photographed.
Organised violence is seen among Chimpanzees too.
Not exactly. You better refer modern psychology and history books.
The first book is Ok, though some assumptions like no violence before Sumerians are patently wrong. The second one is a waste of time.
Atleast they would notice that the nearby city is not flooded.
I have various references, only I cannot give internet links. The Whooley finding is greatly discredited and it is CONFINED to Ur.
That is false. There were multiple Ziggurats and not only that they the one decriberd belong to 1981–1973 BCE
Then you didn’t look, even Wikipedia is clear here
The Ubaid period (ca. 6500 to 3800 BC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_period
The Uruk period (ca. 4000 to 3100 BC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk_period
Mythologies written centuaries later will not align, no surprise there.
Cain is not Enki.
My question is whether all of Adam’s descendents were killed or only Cain’s?
If it is literal I expect the whole world, at least all the Middle East submerged to cover the Zagros Mountains. In that case I will not find anyone building a boat but run away. Literally there wouldn’t be a flood of same magnitude again, but there was a larger flood in 2900 BC.
They do not know the “whole” earth was this big, so there is no surprising in them thinking that whole humanity was started by two people.
Yeah, Adam was a man as well, just not the first. What makes you say the literature is nonsense?
Yeah, the humans created in Gen1 were created in the same way as all other animal life, after fish and land life and mammals. Evolution.
Genesis 4 says there were others that Cain feared. Others that God marked Cain to protect him against. So who could that be? Unnamed siblings? If they're unnamed siblings then why mark Cain? Would they not already know who Cain was?
There had been no rain and there were no people in the specific region he chosen to create the garden in. He chose an isolated region, isolated because it was an arid desert, and created a garden there.
It has plenty of bearing. The statement in Luke gives us insight into what the Jews thought at the time. They counted themselves and all of Adam/Eve as 'sons/daughters of God' and this passage is noting that this is how they thought of Jesus as well.
There was a large flood that ended a culture, that the Sumerians wrote about and dated to happening just before Uruk. The point of taking animals in a boat I believe was because the flood cleared out the region so when they landed they had to start over. They would need animals as the region would be void of animals as well.
No, this illustrates just how significant free will is. Even God cannot anticipate what they'll do because it's not His will.
The Sumerians were not the first settlement. Farming and highly populated farming communities existed to the north of Sumer for thousands of years. Organized warfare did not exist before this age in this region.
India is like 3300 miles away.
The problem is there hasn't been much opportunity to excavate since considering the location.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridu ...
Possible location of Tower of Babel
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:[8][9]
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. -
Here's a reference that delves into the details of the period between ... http://www.academia.edu/3187072/Is_ther … and_beyond
How do you know? Genesis says Cain established a city. The Sumerians say it was Enki who just showed up one day and built a city. Genesis speaks of seven generations beyond Cain, Sumerian mythology also speaks of the seven generations that followed Enki. There are many parallels.
All of Adam's descendants except Noah and his sons. The only people who thought the whole world started with two people are the people who assumed that's what it was saying in the centuries since.You yourself said it doesn’t make sense and what doesn’t make sense is called nonsense. You have to change the words and meanings to make sense out of it.
Literally in Gen 1 god created Man, in Gen 2 god created Man. So… In gen 2 it is also said that man is made from Dust
In gen 2 also it is the same.
Not unnamed siblings but mistake in the book.
Not specific region, that comes later.
Luke cannot have any insight into an ancient book and his intuitions are totally invalid unless he is the author of genesis. His insight is only that of a christian. Jesus has nothing to with Genesis, it is totally deferent myth.
Just before Uruk would be 4500BC.
There is no evidence any large flood(that involved all the valley), the largest occurred in 2850BC. Sumerians wrote about it in 2300 BC. They will not need Ravens and doves (and the other animals described) and to need that not only the valley but the whole Middle East had to be flooded.
That will not make it a non contradiction, either god is omniscient and he anticipated or he is not omniscient and he didn’t.
Organized warfare existed from the time of Apes, more than a million years. It existed in tribal societies that had no contact with middle east for tens of thousands of years.
If there is a flood in Eridu, people around the border regions(and those who are alive after) will notice that it is confined to Eridu and surrounding regions are not flooded and they do not have to go to India to find that out.
Eridu was excavated and there was no flood,and the whooley finding is not in the exact region of Ur.
It will not change the fact that the said tower is from 1981–1973 BCE after the 2900 flood.
Again will not change the fact that there is an overlap between Ubaid and Uruk period, They are making the overlap to a 1000 years , I said only 300 years.
There are similar mythologies in almost all cultures, doesn’t mean Cain or even individual persons started cities.
Parallel? It is a copy.
That means all Human beings in Middle east were killed except Noah?
"The only people who thought the whole world started with two people are the people who assumed that's what it was saying in the centuries since"
The only people who thought otherwise is those came millennia later and found it's nonsense but still want to make it true.
Nope, you just have to read it in the light of modern knowledge. In light of modern knowledge, given the timeline and Egyptians and Sumerians existing within 2000 years of Adam being created, it provides a specific timeline. Within that timeline the world was already populated by humans. Humans actually did that the humans in Gen1 were told to do, exactly.
If read to mean Adam was the first human, and the reation of humans in Gen1 was a different telling of that same event, contradictions abound. But if read in the light of modern knowledge, it all works out with no contradiction. Contradiction one, the Gen1 humans were commanded to do specific tasks by God, and were deemed 'good' by God. Neither applies to Adam/Eve. Within one generation they failed to do what God commanded. So did Cain. They could not have been counted on to carry out these commands and would not have been deemed 'good'. Contradiction two, the others Cain feared. Within an already populated land this makes sense. Without it doesn't.
No, Gen2 says God manually created them from the dirt. Nothing in Gen1 was manually created. Just willed.
Even though it becomes cohesive and in line with what's known if read in the light of modern knowledge, you choose to assume it a mistake? That's your choice. Most who find cohesion between ancient texts and history wouldn't do that.
It specifies it being between the Tigris and Euphrates.
Luke had insights into the oral traditions and historical beliefs of the Jews of that age. The passage states that it was believed Jesus was the son of God by way of being a direct descendant of Adam and that everyone that was was counted as sons of God as well.
Not really. A rather small flood that only covers some of the valley would appear global because of the curvature of the Earth.
Why else would God need to test Abraham. Why give the Israelites laws, then punish when they failed. God can see all time all at once, yet could not know what humans with free will would do until it was done. Until it was part of the timeline. Because a free will is truly a will apart from His.
Somebody should tell the experts who say differently.
Sumerian cities were within eyesight of one another. Yet the Sumerian king's list says the world was destroyed. Why would they say that if they could see the other cities were not flooded? Why would kingship end in all the cities all at once, then begin again if not?
Seems odd the Sumerians would lie about there most holy city being destroyed.
That ziggaraut in particular is notably difficult to date because so many bases exist where attempts to rebuild on the same spot were made.
So then what constitutes the difference between the two and why did one culture begin where anothe was still prominent in the same region?
If the descendants of Noah's sons and their families went to each of these places, were literally dispersed in all directions throughout the land as the story says, then it makes sense that each culture would share similar stories between them because they were all there are are remembering the same events.
That it's a copy is an assumption that doesn't match up considering the differences. Like the description of the ark shouldn't have changed.
No, there were plenty of humans left. In nothern Mesopotamia, in Egypt, in the Indus Valley, etc.
I don't want to make it true. I want to find out the real truth and am not dismissing things prematurely or without proper reasoning.You have read it in the light of modern knowledge? Even now there are people who insist it is the whole world. In the light of modern knowledge humans are no different for the last one millenia. In the light of modern knowledge no human being live more than 120 years. In the light of modern knowledge Humans had populated the world before that time, crossed and populated America by 10000BC. And to read it in modern knowledge you have to deny a good part of the book.
And don't forget it is god who said "I will destroy from the face of earth ALL liliving things that I have made.
That means god created him afresh, new. There was no Man before that. It also deny what we know about man, man is just a product of evolution not made from dust. We also have to deny the sentence " the history of heaven and earth". We also have to deny "eve the mother of all beings".
What you call modern knowledge is your distorted reading. God made man itself makes it clear that it is mythology.
It is not cohesive either. There is no historical landmark in that story place in anywhere in history. Humans beings settled in mesopotamia and made villages around 5400 bc. There were various flood in various cities but not a single flood that encompass all the cities after 10000BC and the next major flood occurred in 2850BC.
I meant the “specific” region come in bible after god created man. He put them in a specific region not created in specific region. It was the history of “heaven and earth”, not any specific region.
Didn't say like that. That myth writer had written that Adam was the son of god and rest are sons of Adam and Jesus is the son of god because he has no Human father.
The people in the next city can see that the nearby city is flooded but theirs is not. And the flood is supposed to inundate mountains.
And according to the bible such a major flood is never to recur but one major that inundated many cities occurred in 2850BC.
Also if only one place or even the valley is flooded he only have to take the live stock, not crows and creeping animals.
That means god is not omniscient. He can't see all at once.
The person who wrote that book you suggested or a few creationinsts are the "experts"?
We even have photograph of warring tribes from New Guinea after the first contact. (No contact with the rest of the world for more than 40000 years).
Heard of Talheim death pits?
The Indian, Chinese, American….. All have similar myths. Does that mean they are all right? The Sumerian kings ruled for tens of thousands of years, is that true?
The truth is a major flood occurred in 2850BC and stories slowly spread which got exaggerated over centuaries. Again myths got another role, it is not teaching history and that is why almost every human society have some myths.
They didn’t lie, the flood happened in 2900BC. Only they got the timing wrong just like they got the reginal years of their king wrong.
It is dated, after 2000 BC
You need to read more. The same reason Roman culture ended and a new started. The difference is the difference in pottery and other art/architecture style.
It adds up considering that it was transmitted for centuries and they ADAPTED it to their purpose. You do not expect monotheists to say gods. Do you? There is no need for Noah's sons to go anywhere byt only other people to come to Noah's place and they did. The assyrians, persians and jews went to babylon and assimilated.
There were plenty of people left in mesopotamia too, there is no evidence of total destruction.
Real truth? I don’t think so. You do not even define your words. Your only premise is that mythological stories from mesopotamia are true and you propose some "free will" which you cannot define any other way other than defying the will of an imaginary deity.
People who insist it was the whole world reject modern knowledge. There's a definite and obvious difference between modern humans and indigenous humans. That change came about 6 millenia ago. Yes, naturally evolved humans don't live past 120, just as Genesis 4 says. The way you're interpreting it that causes you to think you have to reject a majority of the book is the way people over the centuries who didn't have the benefit of modern knowledge interpreted it. They were wrong.
Don't forget it says Eve is the mother of 'all the living'. That's who died in the flood. Everyone 'of Eve'.
Yes, God created him new, separate from the humans who came before. I've already explained why the humans of Gen1 can't be Adam. So humans came before.
Yes, there are historical landmarks. Like the first city being in the same region of the world where Genesis is set. There's all the cultures of that region of the world and timeframe claiming superhuman beings lived among them and interacted with them. We don't have enough flood data to be able to say there just wasn't one.
But the bit about there being no rain and no man to till the land and all of that was talking about a specific region. The region where Adam was placed was void of people because it was dry and there was no plant life.
Nope. It's saying that they didn't understand it to mean he was the direct son of God, but that he was the son of God in the same way the rest of them were. Read it again.
If a flood happened 2850BC, it was after the descendants of Noah were dispersed, so unlike the one before, it didn't kill 'all the living/of Eve'. Why not crows and creeping animals? He's starting over, wiping the slate. Clearing out a portion of the world and starting over.
No, that's not what that means. Even being able to see all time all at once, God can't see what's decided in a given moment until that decision exists. It can't exist until the situation exists. So God couldn't know free willed beings would interact with humans until God created free will. Then it's part of the timeline. Before that it isn't so it isn't there to see.
Creationists? Wrong. Those authors think religion is a product of this change as well.
Talheim death pits date back to 5000BC in Germany. At least 500 years after free will was introduced and in an accessible region from the place where it was created.
Similar myths is because people from the same region who were familiar with these stories carried them with them into these places. The Sumerians used a number system that's base-60. When numbers in Sumerian texts are translated they're translated by base-60. If those same characters are translated with base-10 then the ages are much more in line with the ages in Genesis.
I seriously doubt, given this document was documenting the history of their region and their list of kings, that they would be wrong about the flood happening before the building of Uruk.
"The ziggurat ruins of Eridu are far larger and older than any others.." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridu
I understand what designates or differentiates cultures as far as artifacts. What I'm saying is how does it make sense that one culture ended while the other flourished? With both being so similar.
How is changing the dimensions and shape of the ark adapting to their purpose?
The drought when the Sahara transformed into a desert caused Noah's sons to disperse.
"The archaeological record shows that Arabian Bifacial/Ubaid period came to an abrupt end in eastern Arabia and the Oman peninsula at 3800 BC, just after the phase of lake lowering and onset of dune reactivation. At this time, increased aridity led to an end in semi-desert nomadism, and there is no evidence of human presence in the area for approximately 1000 years, the so-called "Dark Millennium". This might be due to the 5.9 kiloyear event at the end of the Older Peron. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_period"There's a definite and obvious difference between modern humans and indigenous humans."
Really? Then there must be a DNA change resulting in a decrease in lifespan by a factor of 10 - has that been isolated? Is anyone even working on that?
Or was it just from a changing lifestyle? Cramming lots more people into a small area, resulting in a change in lifestyle that gave rise to the attributes you list is "patrist"?Except all the other examples of 'people being crammed together' didn't change. 3000 years of agricultural history in northern Mesopotamia and they remained matrist cultures. If what you say were true that would be different.
The bible explains the reduction in lifespans. By Abraham's time all the long living ancestors were gone, roughly 2000 years after Adam, or roughly 3500 BC. Because they were intermingling with mortal humans who only live 120 years, each generation's lifespan shortened.
There may be something there to find genetically. If someone in the right position knew what to look for then maybe something could be found. That's why you don't just dismiss hypotheses that prove predictions true off-hand and nonchalantly. You test them. We're all interested in finding the actual truth right? Then don't let personal preferences get in the way of that.Of course it changed - we have only to look at the Americas (which were NOT influenced by the Sumerians) to see that. Don't forget that it would be the city, not agriculture, that caused the change.
Yes, the bible, with it's Goddunnit, explains everything. But there is no physical evidence to support the tale, even though there should be. (I thought we were over the God gambit as explanations?)
You test them, yes. So who is doing the testing? The right people (geneticists and anthropologists) are there and we have DNA from then and now - what and where are the differences you say exist? And yes, don't let personal preferences get in the way of that - don't use the biblical tales to prove the biblical tales.
I found a scripture that indicates time was calculated differently then
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
I'm sure they had no real way of keeping time, except marks placed somewhere
Maybe diseases weren't around yet in those days, no cigarettes, drinking, or drugs, in the OT
Or it is possible there really is a God, who kept them alive. We have no way to prove otherwise
Modern knowledge is just that modern, which was not available to the ancients. There is no difference between modern and indigenous other than in the technology.
Why the rest of the humanity those existed, were they dead?
Then there was no evolution? What about the “history of heaven and earth, the book is wrong there? And your explanation is not based on the text.
The first city is not in the historical land mark genesis set, but the first cities created Atharhasis which was later copied by Assyrians, Babylonians and later Jews who were taken to Babylon by Nebucchudnezar. There is no landmark. We have enough flood data to say there was no universal flood in Middle East or Eridu in the said period.
Not at all, it says heaven and earth. Only AFTER creation of man it say about a specific region. God created a garden after creating man
That I said is christian reading and not jewish reading. Second it says only about Adam as son of man, and is true for he was created by god while the rest are products of adam and Jesus is not a product of adam. Also Luke is not contemporary to genesis, so what the Jews thought 500 years after doesn’t matter. Also according to Psalms god’s(El’s) sons are in heaven.
That is why we call it a myth. He don’t have to wipe the slate, the moment a flood recedes all such animals will come back from the non flooded region. And during the flood most birds will simply movre away to non flooded regions.
Either you do not know what omniscient means or do not know what “seeing all at once means”. If he is omniscient he should be able to see all future irrespective of any decisions, if he can’t he is not omniscient.
Religion flourished for more than 40000 years. Crow Creek Site is in America where there was no contact.
You said all of Adam’s descendents died in the flood, in that case as you say the people of Talheim is descendents of Noah, they should also have died in the flood.
No. Myths in china and America started independently. The Indian Myth is entirely different.
And when a base 60 is converted the number should increase not decrease.
They are not documenting history but writing myths. Also they wrote it 700 years after the event.
The Ziggurat of Amer Sin made around 2000BC. There were Ziggurats starting from Ubaid.
They are similar yet different just like Roman and Christian or Greek and Roman.
They changed the story too slightly, right? And what happened to the base 60 there?
Sahara became a desert somewhere in 10000BC.
Didn’t I tell you that already, it ended totally in Oman and near regions due to drought? But that was not the case in other areas. End of Ubaid started around 4100 BC and ended in 3800 BC. Good that you acknowledge it is due to drought and not flood.
Seriously? There are significant differences between modern and indigenous people. Other than technology? How could technology be the only difference, given you acknowledge that? Just that says a lot.
But besides that there's the fact that indigenous cultures are matrist and modern people are patrist. Indigenous people didn't feel the need to invent mathematics and astronomy to figure out the world around them. To them they already had it figured out. It's alive and part of them. A spirit force running through it and them. They don't feel the need to dominate those around them and take land. There's a reason why they've bee nearly pushed out of existence by modern humans.
No, but 'alive' in this sense means having their own minds and wills. Are you really living if you don't make your own decisions and control your own life?
Yes, there was evolution. The Gen1 humans evolved. And homo sapiens did exactly as the Gen1 humans were instructed.
So it's just a coincidence that the first human city with the first signs of patrism existed in the same region and and timeframe as Genesis is set?
Clearly God already had in mind where He was going to place this human. It says there were no humans to till the ground, so He placed this man there. Besides, the chapter and verse breaks came way later. There's a really good chance the beginning of chapter 2 actually belongs at the end of chapter 1.
If you're inferring the sons of God are angels that's demonstrably wrong. If Adam is the son of God because he was created by God, then all those of him are too. They too were created by God because Adam was.
Animals st go when they need to go and live how they need to live. They may come back. But the animals on the ark will be there on a newly cleared piece of land to thrive.
He's all knowing because He created the universe, the universe is His will personified. He knows and sees all and it goes exactly as He wills. The one exception to that is free will. When He first introduced it and the timeline was altered, there were some surprises. That's why it says He was regretful. He regretted that He had to call an audible and flood the place and wipe them out. Th influencing humans and making them wicked. Which is only possible through free will.
No, Noah's descendants are the only survivors. It's the families of the three sons that went out into the world.
I'm sure they did. But it's the ones around the Mediterranean have similar flood stories, as should be expected.
Well they thought it was history. In fact, the reason they first invented astrology was because they associated their gods to the stars, and in their experience with these gods they found them to be moody and unpredicable. They hoped they could better anticipate what to expect.
Right, and the on at Eridu is older than them all. And has so many rebuilds on top of it it's hard to determine how old it really is.
Right, but those cultures didn't exist on top of each other at the same time.
It's not the dimensions alone that changed, but the overall shape of the boat. It's round in the Sumerian version.
Okay, and the Uruk came on the heels of it. Just as the bible says, the flood came, then they immediately started building again, including a tower. A tower might be something you're inspired to make after something like a large flood happened.Technology is the only difference? I hope you know that there were no technology with the ancients, and then they started using stone stools, then bronze, then iron….. Whoever used stone tools have an advantage over those using no tools….. So as the sophistication of tools/technology improved they could hunt better, make better homes, better agriculture, cities……
Indigenous people didn’t need maths because there was nothing to compute, they hunt and gather and divide it equally. Only when they started to have possessions such a need arose. And indigenous hunter gatherers are neither patrist nor matrist because they have no possessions to transfer except children. They did fight with the neighbors and established civilizations as in America, New Guinea……. There was and is war between tribes, only the scale of destruction is different. The hunter gatherers in many areas settled, not only in Mesopotamia. They couldn’t dominate because it is difficult to take walled cities without the technology. More over technology evolve faster in settled societies owing to the higher population density and sparing of more people for other works which is not possible in Hunter gatherers as they have to hunt almost every day and employ almost all its members to procure food.
Is that you call by free will?
What right people had in monarchial societies? They had no control over their life especially in absolutist regimes.
Was there any evolution for Adam? Was Adam a homo sapien?
Yes. Rather you are turning it head over heels. It is the first CITIES that produced the first story which was later copied by genesis writers.
He didn’t ask man to till he expelled them. It clearly state the history of “heaven and earth” meaning the whole world. Oh now the whole book is wrongly written? How far will you go to make sense out of that? Shall we write a whole new genesis?
Well, what according to you is the genesis story?
I am referring to the council held by El in heaven which Yahweh attended.
Seven pairs of animals? By the time Noah get back the wild animals will be well established there. Noah didn’t need to take any animal other than the domesticated ones. Besides it was god himself who said he will destroy ALL animals HE CREATED, not animals confined to any specific region.
Omniscience and not able to see, both cannot be true at the same time. Either god is omniscient and saw what decision man will take or he is not omniscient and he didn’t know what decision man will take, which is it?
The Talheim death pit is in Germany, from 5000. If only Noah’s descendants survived then there should be a flood in Germany to kill them, but clearly there wasn’t one.
What about the natives in America and Australia, are they Noah’s?
Yes because they all originate from the same area. Sumerians wrote it, Assyrians copied it and spread it as they conquered all middle east and later Persians got it either directly from them or from the Babylonians who were the indigenous people of that area and later jews got it when they went to Babylon, is there any surprise that there is gross similarities? And because Indians and Americans didn’t go there, they had different flood stories.
They thought it history, didn’t make it history. The first historian Herodotus also thought he was writing history while obviously he was not. There is no more truth in flood stories than there in Herodotus ancient stories.
That will not make it tower of babel but just one another tower that whose building started in Ubaid.
They did. Roman culture was in decline for centuries while Christian was on the rise. Go to India or Africa, you can see the most modern culture with the medieval one side by side. Or just go to Nogales in America Mexico border, you can see the difference. So in an ancient society were transport was difficult, the changes would be more pronounced.
Different societies changes in different ways. There are many reasons for the decline of one culture and the rise of another. If you want we can have a discussion on that too.
You ignore that also a millennia passed and the cultures changed. As a story is transmitted it changes.
There was no flood. Uruk started in 4500 BC and its culture gradually spread to other cities while Ubaid gradually declined. Ubaid culture was gradually replaced over the course of centuries. They started building towers during Ubaid period and were dedicating it to their gods. It is just like American culture today, it is gradually spreading to the rest of the world, now the Japanese are as American as Americans, and does that mean there was a flood that killed the Japanese?
The city wasn't a city until the behavior change. If population alone caused it it would have happened elsewhere. Sooner. It didn't. The change came first, then the city. If it's not agriculture, then how could a 'city' be the catalyst?
It's the physical evidence that lines up with the events described. What they're attributing to a God actually happened. It doesn't prove God, but it proves the stories aren't all myth.
To determine something through DNA you have to know specifically what to look for. If the right people considered this hypothesis they could then test for it. A good hypothesis steers investigation so you're not looking for a needle in a haystack. All I can do is keep talking about it. Eventually the right people will hear it."The city wasn't a city until the behavior change. If population alone caused it it would have happened elsewhere. Sooner. It didn't. The change came first, then the city. If it's not agriculture, then how could a 'city' be the catalyst?"
A behavior change doesn't happen without there first being a perception change. Agriculture meant staying in one place as opposed to just hunting and gathering. That allowed farming communities to form. Cities are by definition not farming communities anymore, they start to engage in trade and manufacturing which takes people away from farming and creates denser populations.
The mind evolves with new data, so it's slow with short bursts of rapid expansion; like when we developed complex language. That more than anything gave us the modern perspective.
Information and discovery is what drives our evolution more than anything.
"It's the physical evidence that lines up with the events described. What they're attributing to a God actually happened. It doesn't prove God, but it proves the stories aren't all myth."
I agree. The stories are very loosely based on past historic events which have been altered and interpreted by word of mouth for perhaps a couple thousand years before their final interpretation was written down by a single surviving Hebrew tribe called the tribe of Judah around 400 bce.
Not the only version of the stories ether. You mentioned Sumerians and of course Babylonians recount many of the same stories from very different perspectives and attributed to many other gods. But that doesn't mean the Sumerians had it right either. The stories may be about ancient events dating back to the beginning of story telling. Always being altered by time and changing perspectives. After all, they are just stories about life. We modernize stories all the time. For example, floods have been happening since man came on the scene.
"To determine something through DNA you have to know specifically what to look for. If the right people considered this hypothesis they could then test for it. A good hypothesis steers investigation so you're not looking for a needle in a haystack. All I can do is keep talking about it. Eventually the right people will hear it."
Perspective changes don't show up in DNA, I wouldn't think. And I doubt there is more to it than that.Then you acknowledge a psychological change can be genetic, in which case it would not require a change in perception. The truth is it'll be extremely hard to determine exactly what caused it. All we know for certain is that it happened. But being psychological there will most likely not be physical evidence. We can guess as to an external cause, but that's all it will ever really be is a guess. Personally I think it's genetic. It spread much like a genetic change would spread.
I'm certain that the events written about actually happened many centuries before writing was invented. It's not surprising events would be remembered differently. But the biblical version lines up timeline wise with the physical evidence. How they accomplished that alone over centuries of not having the benefit of a written account is impressive enough on its own.
According to you, it either happened instantaneously whenever there were enough people living together to call it a city, or it happened after it became one. You have stated several times that the city was the first instance of patrism.
No, there is no physical evidence of Adam, Eve or the garden - all of which is described in the bible. There is no reason to think any of those happened; only a city which developed patrism. Beyond that, it happened over and over again throughout the world, and without the causes listed in the bible - i.e. the intervention of the gods.
Hard to think that geneticists the world over haven't looked at anything beyond the differences/similarities in mitochondrial DNA to follow descendants. Ergo - I'm quite sure they HAVE looked at the differences (and they will be there - evolution happened in the 6,000 intervening years and it would be of interest). They just haven't seen any changes that could make a society decide to circumsize, become violent (although differences causing a sociopath are found), or become patrilineal.
And that's the point; those changes would be there, and they aren't. Ergo the best explanation is that living with high population densities caused the changes you (and the bible) attribute to gods. It has happened every time a city of sufficient size formed, without or without gods, and that in turn means the attribute was there before cities whether it could be exhibited or not. (War, for instance, requires opponents of sufficient size located a small distance apart - impossible until cities formed).
You're still trying to say that the bible says gods and therefore there were gods. No evidence of gods, no change that didn't happen elsewhere (and no physical change at all that you can point to), but the bible says gods so gods are the answer. It still doesn't fly.It's not the size of the population that made it a city. It's the fact that they stratified into class systems. They put into a place a system where there was a ruling class that organized the labor and a labor force to carry it out. Those cultures that existed to the north never did that. All participants had the same class level. Men and women, young and old, everyone.
There's plenty of reason to think the Adam/Eve stuff happened. And most of that comes from the Sumerians, which makes sense as they'd be the population that was around. What they wrote about is exactly what you'd expect to see if the Adam/eve stuff really happened. There's a god specifically attributed to each player; Adam, Eve, Cain, Seth, and God. And you've got the parallel's with the city being built,
You seem to think they have a much better grasp of DNA than they actually do. They can't just look at DNA and determine a psychological change. All they can really do is determine where the similarities and differences really lie.
The point isn't about gods. The point is about the physical evidence matching what it should if Genesis actually happened. The claim of the stories, both biblical and Sumerian, is that there was a God/gods. The best we can determine is that the events happened and that the stories are consistent.Gotta love the changing definitions.
OK, Europeans did not stratify until sometime later. I doubt that, but can't prove it, so let it stand. But the natives of the Americas most definitely did, and without help from Sumerians. No god needed, and if it wasn't needed there there is no reason to think it was needed in Sumeria.
"There's plenty of reason to think the Adam/Eve stuff happened." Yes, there is...as long as you think a god is out there. If not, there isn't much (any) reason to think the tale has any truth in it. All you've provided so far are "maybe's", "possibly's" and "conjectures" without a hint of any evidence of a god.
You're right, you can't find psychological change from DNA. But if there was a change it would have been found; it hasn't and thus we can only conclude it isn't there. Following up with that there is no reason to conclude that gods made any changes outside of information exchange, and as that happened multiple times in multiple places that doesn't make much sense either, regardless of the ancient tales.
If it's about physical evidence, fine. Produce the physical evidence of a god(s). The stories of "goddunnit" are always consistent, as "goddunnit" answers every question possible (something I've already mentioned but you ignored), and answers it perfectly as long as we don't ask "how" as well. But then so does ET's from Betelgeuse and the invisible pink unicorn living under your bed - when physical evidence is not required that's the result we get. ET's, pink unicorns and any other imaginative stories we can come up with that did everything without our knowing.What definition changes? I've been saying since the start that class stratification makes a city.
The natives of the Americas only did once migrations happened from the continent where free will already existed.
Regarding Adam/Eve - We've got testimony from the people that lived during that age with no other explanation. Again, there will be no physical evidence of God. His actions are recognized as 'natural'.
No, changes in DNA would most likely not be found. I mean, we'd find differences, but have no way of knowing what changes those differences caused.
There are no ancient documents of ancient writers speaking of unicorns or aliens. But there are documents talking about gods. All you've got assumptions that their made up, though that doesn't jive with the evidence showing consistency. One thing about imagined creations is they lack consistency."Stratification makes a city". Then a family, Dad, Mom and a few kids, makes a city as Dad's the head and gives orders, Mom is lower but also orders the kids while doing work, and kids as they grow older work the fields, clean house, etc. And of course a million people living in a few square miles isn't a city unless there is a clear hierarchy.
Yes. Natives of the Americas had only one migration (Bering Strait) and yes, there was already free will over 10,000 years ago when it happened. So where did the Sumerian influence you claim arise from?
Really!!?? Someone saw a god's hand come down, gather dirt and make Adam??? Someone witnessed Him yank the extra rib out and form it to a woman?? They were there when the snake spoke? When Adam got his instructions to name the animals? They watched as the earth formed? What have YOU been smoking?
OK, DNA changes should be found. What are they, when did they happen, and what were results we can ascribe to those changes? The genome map is pretty complete now - we should be able to give a very good guess as to what changing this gene into [that[/i] one would do, especially with the before and after right in front of us.
What do you mean, no accounts of ET's? There are documents all over talking of aliens; eyewitness accounts and actual "probees" for goodness sake! That the writing isn't millenia old doesn't matter - what does matter is that the total, 100% lack of eyewitness accounts of a god indicates pretty strongly that there weren't any. Only people making up stories to describe and explain natural events they DID see but didn't understand (or like, such as floods). Exactly like the ones written today that "explain" events or objects from long ago. God (or ET) did it all, and I know this because I don't understand how else it might have happened.
But the statement that's God's actions (the same ET we're not trying to prove exists) are seen as natural intrigues me. If those DNA changes were natural, that could mean a cosmic ray, some chemicals or even an "incorrect" DNA copying, yes? And the knowledge gain has been seen over and over, again all "natural" - why the insistence the gods did it all? It could have been completely natural, there is no physical evidence it wasn't, and the only records are from people that make the exact same mistake that modern people do - "I don't know how X happened a thousand years ago and therefore it was a god". Why insist it was a god (that we're not trying to show did anything)?I assure you, I only smoke the good stuff.
As for accounts, let me draw a comparison for you so maybe you can get a better sense of things. Yes, there are people who claim alien contact and being probed and all of that. Now, imagine there were account by every culture for thousands of square miles. Where they all claim to have interacted with aliens. Entire cultures and countries claiming it the truth. That's the difference. Not just an individual or two, but entire cultures. Multiple cultures.
Yes, God's actions are natural. About the only way you can tell is by how orchestrated those 'natural' events appear to have played out. But even that we dismiss as just natural phenomenon. No matter the complexity that results from a series of events that wouldn't have happened if everything didn't happen just like that.
You say there was already free will 10,000 years ago. How exactly do you define free will and determine it existed?
DNA evidence could potentially be found with the information we have. But to do that the people who would be doing the looking need to know what to look for, specifically. If one of them took this hypothesis seriously and looked in that light, maybe something could be determined. That's why you form hypotheses.
In those indigenous cultures, the dad wasn't the head of the family. Mom and dad were equal as far as the culture was concerned. What you're talking about is only true in male dominated cultures, which only came about after the change.Only smoke the good stuff, eh? I definitely want some of it!
Yes, virtually every culture has proclaimed gods. Not the one(s) you refer to but different gods, different attributes, different actions and events and usually a whole raft of them. None agree with any other in any specifics at all - how does that provide any evidence that any of them existed? Just because they all used "goddunnit" instead of "Dunno"? We're still doing that today, and there are far more in more different cultures, but there is still no evidence that any one of them is correct. Mankind has an insatiable curiosity, and always wants answers to everything. They also have deep seated fears and desires of and for the future - fears and desires that the gods can always satisfy if only we believe in them. So we believe, but that isn't evidence those beliefs are actually true. Man believes in an awful lot of things (Dragons, maybe, or leprechauns. Or witches.) that are now known to be totally false.
I think I see - the natural events led to natural, if unlikely, consequences - so improbably that it had to be intelligence guided. But that has been going on for billions of years; every single mutation that ever happened to our (or any other) genome was astronomically unlikely and yet here we are. The problem is that it's too easy to look backward and exclaim at how improbable it all was, forgetting all the while that the probability was 100% it would happen - after it already did. From the first two grains of dust that coalesced in the formation of the earth to the exact angle needed for the collision that formed the moon, everything that has ever happened has been extremely improbable yet it happened. It happens everywhere in the universe as well, just with different end results - results at least as improbable as what we see here. Perhaps you are laboring under the assumption that it was all for the benefit of homo sapiens and thus the improbabilities meant something beyond pure chance?
Free will. Difficult for me to define, but it appears that we are using very different definitions. Every time there is a choice available to an organism it constitutes free will. Animals have free will, but precious little of it as their built in instincts do most of the "choosing" rather than the mind. A monkey, picking fruit and eating it, will choose which fruit to pick, but that choice is at least partially made by millions of years of instinct dictating which one is the right type, ripeness, etc. And if there are 50 equal fruits to choose from it becomes a matter of simply grabbing what is (nearly) equal of ease to reach. Nevertheless, that monkey still has the free will to choose a fruit over a grub - that will not only depend on the climate, time of year and such but also on what it is hungry for. And if the grub that it wants is too hard to get to it will choose the fruit instead.
In the matter of the Bering migration, there were many factors that undoubtedly came into play. Dwindling resources, increased population pressure, wanderlust, curiosity and likely a hundred others; it all came down to "where shall we go?". And the choice was made to head north, into colder climates with less food, to seek new territory. That's free will - the ability to choose between all alternatives, even if some (maybe the one chosen) doesn't seem as good as the others. Maybe it was just wanted more (want is also a part of free will) and the choice reflected that.
It's hard for me to believe that researchers haven't torn that DNA apart by now, with every gene thoroughly mapped. It is, after all, a chance to look into our past and find how we evolved since then. That they haven't found a gene that wasn't there just 50 years prior is telling - were such to be found it would absolutely be investigated by any competent geneticist or anthropologist. We are, after all, an enormously curious animal.
No, Mom and Dad were't equal - that would mean equal tasks and work but it never seems to have worked that way. I can't think of a single hunter-gatherer group, for instance, with stay-at-home Dads while Mom hunted. It is even built into our genes - male eyesight is better at distant or moving objects while females have superior close in vision that isn't automatically drawn to moving objects as just one example of many. And at the end of it all is testosterone - the hormone that, given half a chance, will insist that much of the Patrism you refer to happens. Or did the DNA change wrought by the gods vastly increase the testicular production of testosterone?Regarding "every culture proclaimed gods" and more specifically "None agree with any other in any specifics at all" ...
Actually, that isn't correct. Let's look at the various myths and religious beliefs of the various cultures. There may have been religious beliefs of some kind in other cultures, but in those half dozen or so cultures from this particular part of the world in this particular time frame, they all share common aspects. They all speak of human in form gods, male and female, who lived among them, interacted with them, and sometimes mated and had children with them, creating demigods. All of them. The stories are wildly different, each culture came up with their mythologies independently, yet all of them share these things in common. How do you explain that?
What you describe as far as being improbable, that's what I'm talking about. These are the only things that would show deliberate work of a creator, but they can be dismissed just as easily as you have here. No matter how orchestrated and organized it may seem, that's just how it happened. Nothing special about that.
You do realize that free will as you're describing it contradicts your views in every other way. It just isn't possible. How can a bundle of matter make a conscious choice. That's just brain mechanics. The brain assesses, draws on past experiences, comes up with a list of options, then chooses the best. There's no way this mechanism could make a conscious willful choice. The decisions we make can only be determined by the behavior of the physical matter we're made of. Free will as you're describing it isn't possible and contradicts your view. It's as much magic as a god.That a small area agreed in the most basic attributes of their gods; that they looked like us - is not surprising. It comes from transfer of ideas and knowledge.
The early gods were things, things around us. Things of majesty and awe, like mountains, trees and animals. We found out that they weren't gods. But the gods moved to the celestial...the moon and planets and stars. Far away, they can't be touched and they can't be killed. But we figured out they weren't gods, either and the gods had to change yet again - we defined our gods to be just like us. Look like us, talk like us, act like us. We can't tell the difference, but they are smarter, or can do strange things - he must be a god. And, finally, we had to define our gods as totally invisible, undetectable, and doing nothing that can't be done by nature itself. In that manner, the gods can never be disproved and we can never deny them, for we can't detect them and we can't detect their actions. Which is what happened in your tiny portion of the earth, amongst peoples that communicated with each other before exchanging knowledge with those thousands of miles, and thousands of years, away. Cultures far away didn't match the gods of Mesopotamia because the people didn't talk to each other, that's all. That you have taken a step backwards and said (if I understand you) that the gods were identical to us, DNA and all, and we have become the gods (all except the boss god that made us all), does not mean it happened. It means you have an active imagination and willfully choose to believe without support.
Just so; nothing special, so why make up a story about gods doing it all? No need for them, just nature doing what nature always does.
But you can demonstrate how a bundle of matter makes conscious choices; decide what you want for breakfast. That I don't know the details, that no else does either, does not indicate a god. Ignorance never does. While you can claim that it isn't possible, you can't prove that statement, only your own ignorance (the same as everyone else's).
But I did say that I can't truly define my concept of "free will". Can you do a better job? I DID say that we seem to disagree - what is your concept of the meaning of that phrase?They all spoke completely different languages. The ideas weren't flowing between them like you suggest for that very reason. Plus, there'd be more commonality if they did. Besides, like you said, why not celestial gods that can't be seen? They're trying to explain away things they don't understand, right? Then why dream up stories about gods that actually lived among them and interacted with them? Why not unseen ethereal gods if they didn't see anything anyway? Why not start with invisible if there wasn't anything to see?
But don't you see, a bundle of matter making a conscious choice goes against everything we know about matter. Matter has rules and behaves in very particular ways. For it to be somehow conscious and willful makes no sense in a purely causal/material way. But, if there's a non-physical aspect involved, like a soul, then this makes more sense.
I've explained my concept of free will and even gave you a table of attributes and behaviors that signify it.Are you saying that people that speak different languages can't communicate? My grand daughter will be disappointed - she's learning French. Same for my grandson who is studying Spanish.
Why not celestial gods? Because they had already figured out that the moon isn't a god. And hadn't figured out that they could define an invisible, undetectable god that does nothing and get away with it.
We are already making artificial intelligence, intelligence with at least some ability to choose, and it won't be long until we go full bore and make something akin to our own abilities. Matter (impure silicon) making choices. But even if you don't think that will happen, a simple statement that it makes no sense (to you) for matter to choose isn't worth much as evidence; it needs some backing. Lots of backing, in fact, as we see it doing just that every day of our lives. Of course, if you wish to define what "soul" means and show us one (with evidence it can think and reason), that would go a long ways...You can obviously learn other languages, but it certainly creates a barrier until you do. Do you watch television in English or Spanish? Why?
They hadn't figured out that they could define invisible undetectable gods even though they were making up complex stories about unseen beings as the unseen cause of things they didn't understand? It's typical to dismiss the people of these ancient ages as ignorant fools. That assumption is made all the time. It seems more confirmation bias to me than anything else. It's what supports what you already have determined to be "the truth".
No, you don't get it. I'm saying it makes no sense, not to me, but in the context of what we know about matter. The behavior of matter is so consistent that observing it allows us to define constant and consistent laws that govern it. Nothing about that says conscious will is possible. That's like a river being able to willfully determine it's path.And it takes a few months to learn enough to communicate in a new language. They had a thousand years, according to your timeline.
YOU said they thought the gods looked just like them, not I. I thought those people had come up with an invisible god, but you say no. Or at least that's what I get from your comments?
Matter comes into and out of existence without any cause. This we know. Does that fit with your predictability of matter? Plus, of course, if we could know the location of every neuron, every connection and what every electron on those neurons was doing, we might be able to predict with 100% certainty what a person would do - no free will at all. But we can't do that, and attribute the choices those electrons make to free will instead.A few months maybe to learn another latin-based language. See how long it takes you to pick up Chinese or Japanese. That's how different these languages were. Besides, even if there were the sharing of knowledge to some degree, the end product doesn't look like you'd expect it to. A commonality in themes, but wildly different in content.
I said they thought the gods were human in form. But like it says in Numbers when the Jews who had just spent numerous generations as slaves to the Egyptians were able to immediately recognize the inhabitants of Hebron as descendants of the Nephilim just by seeing them, and the fact that they described them as quite large, there were probably some notable characteristics that differentiated them. For example, the name "Sumerian" actually means 'the black-headed ones'.
The uncertainty of the exact location and velocity of an electron is not a will. A will is deliberate and purposeful. Are you suggesting the way an electron moves could somehow create a conscious deliberate will?You're the one saying they were all very similar, while I said they were different. Now it has reversed and suddenly they are all very different, as you would expect religions to be from different cultures? I agree.
You mean they could distinguish the equivalent then of different races. So can I.
Electron flow through the pattern of neurons in the brain is what makes you, you. How could it be any different, then, that electron flow creates consciousness and free will? Unless you have evidence of an immaterial soul not of this universe? Evidence outside of a god, or the writings of a people trying to define a god, that is. You are once more trying to use ignorance as proof of a god (or the soul you think that god made in this case), and it still doesn't fly. Neither you, I nor anyone truly understands the mind (as opposed to brain tissue), but that ignorance does NOT indicate a soul or a god. At the absolute best, it indicates that we cannot yet rule out the soul or god, but then I've said that since the very first.You're not getting it. You're right in that they're different. The characters are different, the stories are different. Like you'd expect considering each of these mythologies were formed independently. Yet each of these independently formed mythologies talk about gods who are very similar in that they're in human form, male and female. So, that actually supports the idea that these beings really existed. That's what should be expected if true.
"Unless you have evidence of an immaterial soul not of this universe?"
Do you not see a problem with that statement? Immaterial? So, what physical/material evidence am I supposed to provide of an immaterial soul?
Electron flow makes us who we are? Interesting that you attribute it to the one unknown involved. We don't even get how electrons work yet you're assigning the characteristics most unlike the behavior of physical matter to the behavior of electrons. So, in other words, you're using ignorance as proof. How does that work exactly? I'm glad you acknowledge that you can't rule out a soul or god, so you should acknowledge that you cannot say that this or that doesn't require a god.Are you trying to say that make believe tales with the same goal in mind (explanation of questions and control of the masses) will never be similar at all? That every detail will have to be different between cultures before it's not evidence of collusion? I would have to strongly disagree; the single factor of people being people everywhere is sufficient to undermine that concept. There are, after all, limited methods whereby the gods can exist (natural things, spatial but untouchable things, and undetectable); it is not surprising at all that many chose one type, particularly as man has gone through all of them at one time or another.
The point is that you're the one making the claim; the onus is on you to prove it true. If you can't, then the claim should not be made.
Electron activity, whether changing orbitals in an atom, becoming the "bonding" force between atoms or travelling in a wire is the root of much of matter as we know it in the macro world. What is startling, then, that electron flow in a conductor, combined with the end points of that conductor, make the mind?
But either way, do you understand the difference between "I can prove there is no god involved in that event" and "there was no god required for that event"? The second does not preclude a god, but DOES still require proof that a god was present if such a claim is made.
Probably not. It was the priests that initially organised labour and metamorphosed into ruling class.And we have huge buildings even before Sumerians,the huge rock structures built by the neolithic people.
I think cities consisted of tribes of the same type of people, like the Hebrews is their city, Edomites in their city called Edom, and so on
How to reconcile God and science.
In the face of so much 21st century science it is illogical nonsense anymore to take any biblical-like stories of creation or suffering literally. Nonetheless, it is surely sound logic to suggest one’s God created the laws of nature including those of natural selection and it’s seemingly capricious yet not, method of evolution.
In a God given universe, the random rules of nature can seem cruel (such as disease), yet, God created the science that governs the universe and everything in it, including the randomness of human evolution and suffering.You do realize how much of what you're saying pure assumption, right? If it were as you say we should expect a much more gradual and consistent progression in tools. Instead we see very little development beyond the first tools, then an explosion of inventions in a very short time. So, the evidence isn't at all consisent with what you're suggesting.
Again, a lot of assuming. I get the logic, but it doesn't match the evidence. First, you are exactly right that indigenous people didn't need maths. The concept of possessions didn't come until the behavior change, and that brought with it a need for maths. Indigenous cultures were matrist, even though there were no possessions, they still treated men and women equally. That changed with the behavior change as well. There may have been fighting, along the lines of what we might see between competing prides of lions or the like.
Also, cities with walls didn't exist before the behavior change either. They simply weren't needed before then. Just look at the evidence and all the ways what you're saying doesn't match up.
They still have free will. They can choose their own destiny. Even in a regime like that you still have the choice whether or not to cooperate.
I don't know what Adam was, but considering his long lifespan I'd say he wasn't homo sapien.
The idea that Genesis is copied is also an assumption. The story speaks of a city being built very early on, and an actual city unlike the world had seen up to that point was actually built in that region of the world during that time period.
Genesis 2-11 is the Genesis story I'm referring to. I'm simply taking into consideration all knowledge we have on the topic. As anyone should.
So, how exactly was their someone there to witness this meeting and write about it if it took place is heaven? It doesn't say it took place is heaven.
All the animals He created in that region. History and common sense tells us it was regional.
Look, there's only one timeline. Before free will it was one way. After free will was introduced it was altered and went another way. God could only see what happened once He introduced free will and altered the timeline. Any other change He would have made He'd know exactly what happened. But statements like His regret before the flood and stories like God testing Abraham are testaments to just how free a free will is.
No, natives in America and Australia are part of the homo sapiens that had already populated the planet. The bibilical story makes clear the flood didn't get everyone. Genesis 6 says Nephilim existed before the flood, then in Numbers Moses and the Jews encounter their descendants in Hebron. Those were the ones God instructed them to take out.
If they were copied you'd expect some similarities in the stories, yet the stories vary wildly. Again, evidence doesn't match your assumptions.
And you know this how?
Yep, just another checkbox to check off to show consistency in the story. One of many.
Okay, so iif you say the climate change ended the Ubaid, then how did the Uruk stay there in the same conditions?
But if they're copying then there's no reason to change and time that passed is irrelevant.
But you said a drought played a role in the end of the Ubaid. How did the Uruk culture continue to thrive in those conditions? That doesn't make sense.If that was the case there was an explosion of technology in 19th and 20the century, we have to say that a new species of Humans developed, but that is not the case. There is no assumption, it is accepted in every scientific circle that human beings are the same for the last one million years. The other species all died out, last one florensis died 10000 years before. There was no explosion of inventions, but it occurred over centuries. One technology evolves and then suddenly related one explodes. I think you know that the ages, stone, bronze, iron is all based on tools. First settlement occurred in Natufian cultures where there was social stratification and domestication of dogs. Gobekli tepe shows huge structures built by humans before the time you propose…. Catalhoyuk shows settlements..
Hunter gatherers cannot have possessions because they cannot carry it, only settlement people can have possessions and Natufians shows thay have possessions including houses. The only behviour change is that they started to settle down somewhere around 10000BC. There were no behavioral changes otherwise, settlement occurred before cities (Natufian). That was the hunter gatherers that settled down so there was no threat from outside. Predominant Job division occurred only with settlement and you see hierarchy in settlements, again Natufian. So it started 9000years before
They can’t choose any destiny, even hunter gatherers were freer, they could choose the hunting ground and they could interact with other groups. In such regimes there is no choice. Even animals have more freedom of choice.
Exactly, that make it mythology.
The story by Mesopotamians speak that and jews were in Mesopotamia. The first city was Uruk. Eridu is the first settlement in lower Mesopotamia.
You are not talking about the story written in genesis and have too much modifications of your own, so what is your version?
Yes, that is why we call it mythology.
He did say anything about the region but “all animals he created” only. And one need not preserve wild animals in a region, even after bigger destruction they come back and usually go before humans can detect the calamity.
That means he is not omniscient and he did not see what would happen.
You are saying that god is omniscient and not omniscient at the same time.
You are saying that god can see future and cannot see future at the same time.
They are opposites and cannot be true at the same time.
You said all of Adams’s descendents died in flood. Are the people in Talheim Adam/s descendants or not? The natives in America and Australia are normal humans that they were able to build cultures, civilizations, organize warfare and repel Europeans who came there before Columbus.
If Adam is god and adam sons are the nephilim aren’t the jews too the same? Isn’t Noah a Nephilim?
There are similarities, isn’t it? The general outline is same. The only variation is with culture. Now if they are not similar, why did you say they are? You said Cain is in the old mythology, so you are contradicting yourself.
Because it speak about gods and a worldwide flood and such magic.
There is no consistency, there were similar ziggurats all over Mesopotamia and there was a zuiggurat that was built around 2000BC by Amar sin which you call tower of babel. And you are saying when they built just another one they simply got new languages, nonsense.
Who told you that climate change was the main reason and all Ubaid people were dead? Uruk is a change of culture, just like 18th century culture is different from 21st. Does this change mandated by climate change?
As stories are transmitted they do change. The bible(NT) itself was changed many times in the first 4 centuries, even though it was written down in parchment. So how much an ancient book would change as it changes in the form of writing and culture and is transmitted over centuries. And as the story is interchanged between cultures each story is adapted for that culture.
I didn’t say all cities were abandoned or all people were dead because of drought but in and around Oman was abandoned. What I said is if some climate change occurred in Mesopotamia that caused change it was drought not flood. Some other cities like Uruk culture actually flourished and nearby cities adopted the dominant culture of Uruk, the same reason world is imitating America. According to your logic, the whole population of the world should be dead before someone adopts American culture.
Doesn't make sense? That is because you don't want to. You said Ubaid ended drastically because of a flood in 4000BC but your own reference shows it ended in 3800BC.
Not true. For one thing, humans only reached anatomical modernity roughly 200,000 years ago, so there were a lot of physical changes in the timeframe you're speaking of. But that's really irrelevant. But the change we're talking about is psychological. It's, well ...
"...many modern scientists [assume] that human behavior can only be explained in physical terms, and ignore the fact that the human mind or psyche is to some degree an independent entity, which can change or develop along its own lines, without necessarily altering physical structure." -Steve Taylor, The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of a New Era
The industrial revolution, an already established worldwide civilization, many factors played into more recent advancements. But the one in Sumer can't even be compared...
"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
Yes, both Gobekli Tepe and Catal Hoyuk are cultures I talk about in my hub specifically. All the same factors existed there that existed in Sumer, high population and such, yet nothing like this happened in those cultures. They remained totally egalitarian and experienced none of the rapid advancements. Something happened. It doesn't have to be a new species. Most likely the change was mainly psychological. But something definitely happened.
Yet personal possessions didn't become a thing until that same culture in Sumer. The settled people of Gobkli Tepe and Catal Hoyuk didn't prize personal possessions either. Even indigenous cultures that still exist today, who are settled, have the same lack of interest in personal possessions. That's the result of a heightened sense of ego, or "I".
The whole reason the governing powers of these cultures restrict behavior is because people are free to choose what they want. People have been trying to control people since free will came onto the scene. But those people can still choose whether or not to 'behave'. Even if it means their death, they're free to choose whether or not to obey. That's free will.
Perhaps. Except there's at least half a dozen cultures that all claim it was true. They all speak of human in form male/female gods that lived among them. Which is exactly the sort of thing you'd expect to see if these beings actually existed. So, who's to say what is and isn't possible. Some might say giant reptiles are impossible, or myth, but we know that isn't true. Stranger things have happened.
Not that it matters, but Eridu is the first location with a high population and an organized government and class stratification, which is what qualifies it as the first city. Uruk experienced urbanization, so I can see why you'd think that, but technically that isn't true. Yes, Jews were in Mesopotamia about 2000 years later. But considering both groups were in the same area would explain both telling such similar stories. They don't have to have copied. The same would be true if the stories are true. See, there's a second hypothesis that fits so your assuming their copies isn't a forgone conclusion.
I haven't changed anything. The story is very specific and has a very specific timeline. This is what lines up with history.
You're the one assuming the meeting took place in heaven.
That isn't true. Why do you think we're always trying to conserve wildlife regions? Because species would go extinct otherwise.
The future is one thing until free will changed it. He couldn't see that alternate future until free will existed. Seeing all time all at once means He's omniscient. But free will is truly a will separate from His.
Well, almost all, except those descendants of the nephilim in Numbers.But yes, you're right, Adam and Noah would also be Nephilim.
Yes, there are similarities. There's a "first man" story, a flood story that includes a "flood hero" who built an ark and saved a bunch of animals, and there's a story of a once universal language being confused into many in the Sumarian stories. But if they were copies then it doesn't make much sense that they'd change the ark from being round to being boat shaped. Not to mention they didn't have the nautical expertise to make up dimension for a boat that's actually boyant and sea worthy. Yes, the events are very similar, yet the telling is wildly different. And they used different names. This doesn't support the idea they were copies, but does support the idea that two cultures are talking about the same true events.
Uh-huh, again they had no idea what "worldwide" was. That's your modern sensibilities being injected and you not taking their level of knowledge into consideration. The gods, however, why is that magic? Because we've never witnessed such things in this age? Have you ever seen a giant reptile? Is that magic or myth too? Don't be so certain of what is and isn't possible. Don't answer questions prematurely because you think you know better. Keep an open mind.
Nope, didn't say that. The climate change that dispersed them actually confused the languages. A few generations spent apart from one another in cultures that spoke wildly different languages will do that.
I didn't say all Ubaid people were dead. I'm going by what you said, that it was the drought that caused the end of the Ubaid, not a flood. But you're also claiming these cultures overlapped. Usually there's no overlap when the cultures are this similar. Usually one melds into the other, like the Akkadians/Babylonians. Usually, if that were the case, there wouldn't be such a dividing line between the two cultures.
Again, all assumption. We don't have enough copies of the bible to know of any changes. Those we do have stay remarkably the same.
You seem to be knowledgeable and well-read enough to know and understand these dates can vary pretty wildly. Don't get too hung up on what one reference says. For every one that says 3800BC I bet I can find at least two that say 4000BC. But flood evidence that actually separates artifacts from two distinct cultures, that's significant.This book is a nonsense one with no understanding of psychology. Mind is nothing but a product of brain.
Natufian culture was not egalitarian, the first evidence of hierarchy is found in Natufian.
The advancement occured over 2000 years, not a single day or year.
And there are many reasons why one culture advance and one do not
Natufians did have possessions. Indigenous people have possessions though not in the scale we have, it is the hunter gatherers who don't have because they cannot store it. Not only that the only thing with value in a hunter gatherer society is food and weapons to hunt.
People have been trying to control from time immemorial. The Neolithic structures would not be possible without control. The Aztecs and Easter islanders did built huge structures and hierarchical socities with their absent "free will".
And even an animal uses its free will to choose the grazing ground.
Not only that most suppressed people don't even know that they have choices.
The culutures are all from the same area and is a continuation, so there is no surprise that they have common stories.
No, it is the Natufian. Eridu is the first one in mesopotamia.
Both groups were in the same area and by the time the second group(jews) reached that area the stories were already in place. Not only that the second group was not even in existence when the stories formed. Only if the group existed in the first place, it could hear the stories.
The story is very specific
gen 1: god created man
gen 2: god created man
gen 5: god created man and called them mankind. So they were not gods sin nor there were any other creation
gen 6: I will destroy man, I will destroy all flesh, destroy all flesh under heaven and you are changing it to a specific region. .
At the same time you contradict yourself by saying that the flood extended upto Germany.
If Adam was god, why did god named him mankind and then said he would destroy man?
If the flood is confined to Eridu then there is no need to conserve, especially ravens. We are conserving because we have destroyed almost all forests and species.
Do you understand what you are saying? Don't use the word omniscient, you seem not able to understand what it means.
Then why did jews meet Nephilim? Any descendant of Noah will be a Nephilim and all those people in middle east will be nephilim.
What about the native Americans?
Was there a flood in Germany or not?
They would change the stories to fit the modern knowledge just like you are doing biw and they would change tje stories because what they want to convey is not what the Mesopotamians wanted to convey.
Giant reptiles are not improbable neither with modern knowledge nor ancient knowledge but god is logically and rationally impossible.
If there was no worldwide flood then Adams descendants did survive at least in Germany but you say they didn't.
The climate change didn't disperse them not only that different groups speak different language. New Guinea has no contact with the rest of the world for 40000 years and they have 2000 languages.
But the bible says language changed around a ziggurat and not that they were scattered and got new languages. It also says language of ALL earth.
The reference YOU sent me says the culture overlapped for a 1000 years!!
It is based on pottery and architecture they differentiate not writing. Usually do not mean always. And soil with better fertility can retain population especially when thery are near a river. Uruk was superior so it wss copied by rest of the cities. Eridu became a city only in 3000.
We have enough copies to say that there is difference and change. And that is written tradition not oral.
You can find enough reference to say that Uruk started in 4500BC and the culture of Uruk is called Uruk culture. You have enough reference to say that it was Ubaid culture in Oman and it ended in 3800BC due to drought. You have enough reference to say that there was no flood in Eridu during 4000BC and you have enough reference to say that there was a flood that was more wide in extent and involved Sharupukak in 2850BC and tje floid stories mention the flood in Sharupukak and it was written down 700 years after the flood that involved Sharupukak.
Understanding of psychology? What's that to do with that statement? Are you saying the mind can't change without a structural change in the brain? What about when you change your mind about something? Make a decision? Are you physically altering the structure of your brain? Did your mindset not change?
Nothing I've found says that. Like this write-up I found on early social stratification, it says Sumer as well. In fact, that seems to be the most notable aspect of the Ubaid amongst the experts .... http://www.philforhumanity.com/Early_So … ation.html
The lack of personal possessions didn't just stop with the advent of agriculture. I did find artifacts from the Natufians that do appear to be personal possessions. I'll have to read up on them some more. They're not a culture I'm familiar with. They seem to be an exception to the rule in a few ways, namely in their ability to escape the hunter/gatherer roaming lifestyle without the benefit of farming. But as you'll see from these quotes, I'm not just imagining the thing about possessions ...
"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
Or this observation by Roman poet Ovid. This change was significant enough and happened quickly enough that this individual saw and acknowledged it...
"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." - Roman Poet Ovid
The Aztecs and Easter Islanders were exposed to free will just like everyone else. There was no kind of ownership of other humans until slavery appeared in this same age and region. There was no social stratification that would allow for control. As Riane Eisler put it, "equality between the sexes - and among all people - was the general norm in the Neolithic".
No, no, the stories are wildly different. The characters are very different. But those characteristics are very similar. Human in form, male and female, often moody and unpredictable. Not what you'd expect from the scenario you're proposing. But very much what you'd expect if beings like this actually existed at one time.
Oh, I'm sure the stories were common knowledge all throughout the region. Because that's how history is remembered by their ancestors and passed down. Of course there would be commonality. All our grandparents tell very similar stories about the era of the great wars too. The stories differ, but there's commonality.
When did I say the flood reached Germany? Tales of the flood would have been carried there by the descendants of Noah.
The bible doesn't refer to them as gods because they weren't. But to mortal humans who live 120 years, they'd seem godlike. So to the Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Greeks and Romans, they'd seem like gods.
I'm sure it went beyond just Eridu. Eridu is literally right on the coast of the Persian Gulf. With those two rivers flowing through there it wouldn't take much to flood the valley, which would have included many of the Sumerian city-states. Hopefully archaeological research can resume in that part of the world in the near future.
I know what it means and I know what you're saying. But the point isn't about what exactly omniscient means. That's a term commonly used to describe God. But it's important to understand the role free will plays in the story and just how volatile and unpredictable and element it is.
No, I doubt the flood reached Germany. That's a long way. By the time the jews were the jews, the long-living ancestors were long dead. As you can from this chart, the last of them died out during Abraham's lifetime. By the time the jews were the jews they would have already become legend ....
Why lie? Why would I lie now? What exactly do you think I've changed in the story? I haven't changed anything. I've simply considered it literally in the context of modern knowledge and have found cohesion. Way more than I ever expected to find.
God is neither logically nor rationally impossible. Intelligence is a naturally occurring phenomenon in this universe. It's highly unlikely the form we know on this planet is the only occurrence or form of it. Take mathematics for example. Was it invented or discovered? We humans invented it in the ancient world just a handful of millennia ago, yet we found out the 13.7 billion year old universe conforms to it.
The bible simply says God decided to confuse their languages, then scattered them. The act of scattering them would accomplish what He wanted.
Are you talking about the reference that details the post-Ubaid period? So what exactly qualified Eridu as a city where it wasn't before?
There are small changes, perhaps attempts to update the text for contemporary readers, much like we do today, but none of the detail changed.
The dates and evidence of floods are highly suspect considering how long ago the research was done. The drought happened closer to 3900BC. Both Genesis and the Sumerian King's List says the flood happened just before the establishment of Uruk.Mind is not the decision mind make, Mind cannot change without a structural change in the brain.
In a way we are physically altering, the neurotransmitters have to move.
I do not have time to read this at present but I will.
To say a few , plow, wheeled card and writing was invented during Uruk Period but these three was invented in a span of 600 years.
A hunter gatherer can’t have any possession other than what they can carry, like small obsedians, shell,…. Dominance can arise only if there is something to control and that is why such stratification occurs in settled agri communities. There the job division is more pronounced especially considering the better muscular power of men. In a hunter gatherer a man has to get food, meat but the major chunk was got by women who gather. So there was equality.
This was not only said by Ovid but many people or many centuries without any particular reason that make sense to us other than a small change in society.
Without social stratification men cannot control other to build such huge structures. In Easter Island there were chiefs who made those structures. Slavery is a different thing than hierarchy, its extreme form.
But according to you Aztecs or Easter islander should not have free will because they are not descendants of Adam.
Even animals have free will, they too are not descendants of Adam.
That doesn’t change the general plot line.
Not only your grandparents, people who are transplanted to you region and heard stories from you years later will retell the same stories though with some changes.
You said Talhem people are descendants of Adam. You also said ALL of Adam’s descendants were killed in the flood. The talheim will not go to Mesopotamia just to be killed by the flood, so the only conclusion is the flood reached Germany. Also Gen 5 make it clear that the Adam of gen 1 and 2 are the same.
Then why did you say Nephilim are god’s son? So the god bible refer to is not Adam’s descendants?
Hardly a 50 mile area which can include many cities. That is not going to kill many species or any species.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … 8en%29.svg
That means god is not omniscient.
Now what is free will?
Then how did jews met the nephilim?
Are the native Americans Adam’s decendants?
If there was no flood in germany, why did you say all of Adam’s sons died except Noah?
I didn’t say you lied. What I said is as you now understand that there can’t be a worldwide flood you are changing the story to make it local. There is no cohesion in the story. God said he would destroy everything except that was there in Noah’s ark, you changed that words to add a specific region then now struggle to explain why then Noah had to carry animals that were living near the place.
All of these are wrong I do not know where to start. God is logically or rationally possible only if you allow fallacies. Universe is eternal and maths is a concept.
So did god scattered them and then later their language changed or did their language changed and hence they scattered?
Walls, writing, technology, class, administration, population.
There were instances where marginal note were incorporated into the story. There is instances where a Lazarus in heaven of one gospel became a live one on earth in another gospel.
These list were written after the flood of 2900 that involved a wider region including Kish and Shuruppak. Just before establishment of Uruk would be 4500BC.
And so how does that work exactly? How can we use our mind to physically alter the brain? The mind is just a product of the brain, yet we can use our mind to decide something that then alters the brain? Do you not see how illogical that is?
Yet other farming cultures that lasted for hundreds of years never went through a period of inventions like this.
There was equality because there was a lessened sense of "I". They were more "tribe" or "group" minded, and not so interested in the self. Much like indigenous cultures still are today.
Like who?
Animals don't have free will. That's why no matter where you go in the world a horse is a horse and a cow is a cow. Descendants of Adam reached the Aztecs and the inhabitants of Easter Island as well. That's what the book Saharasia is documenting. How the people of the Sahara region reached all these places and transformed the behavior of its inhabitance. That includes both of these places.
Some of the plotline would, as expected, be the same. Namely anything that happened before Babel. As all the people who carried these stories to each place lived in the same place and shared those events. So the flood would be included in that.
Right, because the actual history of the region would be well known and prevalent.
The descendants of Noah's sons were descendants of Adam and were not killed. It's the families of these that were scattered throughout the Earth. These are what created the nations.
Gen1 humans can't be Adam. For one, they were given commands by God to follow that would take generations to carry out. Then God deemed them and all else He made 'good'. Clearly, this didn't include Adam who broke God's commands right from the start.
No, sons of God are not gods.
The fact that the story says God made sure to spare animals says a lot. Considering all it took to realize these animals it makes sense He'd want to spare them and retain that genetic information.
A free will is a will apart from God's. The bible first describes all the natural world, animate or inanimate, becoming exactly what God wills. Then Adam is able to behave contrary. That's free will. It would be like if matter could decide whether or not to adhere to gravity.
The Nephilim were in Hebron, which is where God sent them after they were freed from slavery. This passage talking about survivors makes it clear the flood could not have been global.
The flood was meant to take out Adam's descendants because they all existed in that same region. But clearly some, like the nephilim, survived.
I'm not changing the story. I'm reading it in the proper context and the context reveals the flood wasn't global. That and the two mentions of the Nephilim should make that clear as well. The animals don't have free will and were therefore not 'wicked' and condemned to death. It's not necessarily about sparing them just to make sure animals existed.
How exactly is God illogical or irrational?
They were scattered to different regions where different languages were spoken.
"Uruk gave its name to the Uruk period, the protohistoric Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age period in the history of Mesopotamia spanning c. 4000 to 3100 BC, succeeded by the Jemdet Nasr period of Sumer proper. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UrukWhen you install software in the computer, are you changing it physically? The same process happen in brain, you are not really changing, when you give an input new connections occur in brain to store the input, just like the configuration in a data tape. So we really do not change it, but brain changes spontaneously based on the inputs and mind is the product of all that.
There are many reasons why a culture changes, including geography, culture/religion/politics. Uruk went for thousands of years without ever developing gun powder!!
These same were invented independently in America and China.
There was equality because hierarchy was bought. People follow others only if the other can bring them benefit. Hunter gatherers are small societies were everyone know everyone else and were luck changes. There should be a minimum number before hierarchy can arise. In small societies, if anyone tries to rise above the other that will cause disharmony and can endanger the whole group and so hence such an individual is ostracized. Most indigenous societies today have a “Big Man”. On the other hand beyond a certain number, especially in settled societies organization is very important and has a survival advantage. There, there is advantage for being the big man and supporting him because the big man will have something to give.
Many, if you suddenly ask I won’t be able to list all. But the last one I read (words with similar meaning) is a quote given by Abraham Eraly (I don't remember from whom quote was except that he was a European) describing India and why Dara Sheikoh shouldn't be be the ruler.
“That's why no matter where you go in the world a horse is a horse and a cow is a cow.’
Just a human is human.
You said free will is choice, my turkey do exhibit free will if it is given rice and wheat, by eating wheat alone. If she is given rice alone then she will eat rice. America was colonized in 10000 BC after that people went there only in 1000 AD. So there is no chance that Adam’s descendants could get there. Sharasia don’t document but speculate.
Nobody carried the story to cannan, but Jews went to the region of the stories to get the stories. During the time of the stories or for a 1000 years there was no jews.
There is no need for it to be well known in any other region but only that someone from another region has to get to the region and stay there.
Yes what you said is ALL EXCEPT NOAH was killed. You also said Talheim people are descendants of Adam. If all except Noah was killed then Talheim people also was killed in the flood, but ther is no evidence of any flood in germany at that time.
Genesis one is adam because it clearly state that he created them as male and female and he called them MANKIND. It says in the day he created man..
God said: I will destroy MAN whom [b]I have created/[b] from the FACE OF EARTH, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds." It was God WHO said, not the local people.
Then who is son’s of god? You were telling that adam is considered god, Nephilim is Adam’s descendants!
He do not have bother much about sparing the genetic information of a raven, the species is spread more than a 50 mile diameter. Very rare species are confined to a particular region, for that the region should be somehow isolated from the rest. Lower Mesopotamia is not such an isolated area.
If god is not able to foresee what Adam would do, he is NOT omniscient. If he able to foresee then he is omniscient, period. Now you decide.
You can't make the definition of free will contingent on a deity whose existence is in question, especially since you have no idea what that deity is or what it wants. So in effect what you are saying is free will is the ability to behave against what You consider true.
Bible didn’t say about any of Adams descendant surviving except Noah and you also said that only Noah and his son survived. So how did this Nephilim survived? What about german people? Noah is a nephilim, hence his descendants are also nephim, so why did you nephilm were named separately?
It does say the animals except the few selected by Noah were killed. God specifically say he will exterminate all including animals and birds. You are reading it in the context of making it true by reinterpreting and ignoring and by contradicting yourself.
If you define your words (starting from god) and use it properly, I will not have to tell you that. If you only want to conform your bias use all fallacies especially equivocation.
Then why did god say, come let us go down and confuse their language?
Archeologists have discovered multiple cities of Uruk built atop each other in chronological order.[7]
• Uruk XVIII Eridu period (c 5000 BC); the founding of Uruk
• Uruk XVIII-XVI Late Ubaid period (4800–4200 BC)
• Uruk XVI-X Early Uruk period (4000–3800 BC)
• Uruk IX-VI Middle Uruk period (3800–3400 BC)
Though Uruk started early it took some time for the culture to spread for there was no internet then. Is it your bias that prevented you from seeing the information that was given in the same page?
Not a good analogy. You're taking action external from the computer where you're installing software. Like the input received by the brain through the senses. Yes, that can alter the brain as it's recorded. But what I'm talking about is your statement that the mind is simply a product of the brain. I'm just pointing out how little sense it makes that the mind could somehow alter the brain it's a product of. What makes more sense is that there is a soul that experiences the physical world through this body, recording data along the way in this brain. And choosing actions and decisions using the brain. The computer allows interfacing with programs. The brain allows interfacing with the physical world.
We're not even talking about culture changes. We're talking about inventions that make agricultural life in general easier. The necessity that's the mother of invention was presumably quite a bit the same between cultures.
I find that such a sad thing. There's this assumption that we are ultimately a-holes as humans, and we're looking for those same a-hole tendencies in ancient cultures, assuming it's there. I really don't think that's the truth. There is an obvious shift in behavior and culture that points more toward a psychological shift, which is way more likely. And has to be accounted for somewhere along the way.
Is this the one ... ‘We do not know what dreams Dara had for India but they certainly would not have been the same as the dreams of Aurangzeb; India was at the crossroads in the mid 17th century; it had the potential of moving forward with Dara or of turning back to medievalism with Aurangzeb. But India’s destiny lay with Aurangzeb.’
If so that doesn't really apply.
No way a human is a human. No way. Choices in eating are simply survival choices. The body craves and eats what it needs. You can tell someone or something has free will when they no longer "fit in" with nature. Humans live more like a parasite, a virus, than we do mammals. We destroy our own environment. We don't maintain a natural balance. We take too much. That's free will. For the first 95,000 years of anatomical modernity humans lived in perfect harmony with the natural world. Starting in Sumer that stopped.
Yes, the events happened and the stories existed before the Jews did. At some point they inherited them. Probably as oral tradition, because it's there history.
Right, and would inevitably hear the tales somewhere along the way.
No, I don't have an explanation for the Talheim. If they had free will then I don't know how they got it. The flood was meant for the descendants of Adam who all still lived in Mesopotamia.
First, God chooses a land that has no humans, then creates Adam. Adam and his family are the only people. Then Cain goes off the "land of Nod" and builds a city. Somehow Cain overcame his "restless wonderer" fate by settling and building a city. According to the Sumerian a god showed up, established a city, and immediately started using them as a workforce dictating how to manage their farming practices. Something Cain clearly knew how to do. So, the flood was because humans became 'wicked'. So those who had become 'tainted' and were now 'wicked', which is only possible through free will. Gen6 starts off by saying the 'sons of God' married the 'daughters of humans' and had children by them. This is the part that's explaining why the flood is necessary.
Yeah, then they'd be sons of God as well, in that the only reason they existed is because God created Adam. Adam/Eve were the introduction into the world that didn't exist before. Anything that existed because of them is a direct product of God. Adam was considered a god to the humans in existence, like the Sumerians.
Most likely Adam was Enlil, husband of Ninlil, who was banished for sinning.
I think it shows the kind of care He put into creating life that He wouldn't just want to wipe it all out. Besides, He chose the animals that came to the ark. I'm sure He chose the genetic information He wanted to spare.
Look, I'm just using a word that's often used to describe God. I think it causes people to miss one of the most important wrinkles of the story. The introduction of free will caused massive turmoil.
Think of God as one and the same as nature in the context of free will. We humans obviously no longer live in harmony with nature. We used to. When that changed is when free will was introduced.
Look, I know this can be complicated. Genesis follows the descendants of Noah all the way through Abraham and keeps going. It makes it clear, as did the graph I included before, that by the time Abraham lived the long-living ancestors were all dying off. And the lifespan of Abraham was much more in line with mortal humans. The bible says nephilim existed before the flood and after, and are described as being immediately recognizable as Nephilim by Jews who were in slavery for 400 years. So maybe they didn't interbreed with humans like the descendants of Noah did.
You're right, it was an off the cuff thought. But I think it really had to do with retaining genetic information. He had just spent ages creating these animals. I think it makes sense He'd want to spare some of that.
No, please explain. I want to hear your explanation for how you find the concept of God illogical and irrational. Because I consider myself a logical, rational person and I find no problem with God.
I don't know. It was accomplished through a climate change. Perhaps that's why He had to 'god down' to do.
Here, let me point some things out ...
• Uruk XVIII Eridu period (c 5000 BC); the founding of Uruk
• Uruk XVIII-XVI Late Ubaid period (4800–4200 BC)
• Uruk XVI-X Early Uruk period (4000–3800 BC)
• Uruk IX-VI Middle Uruk period (3800–3400 BC)
I'm sure there was some sort of settlement in the location where Uruk was eventually built, but the Uruk period starts at 4000BC with the beginning of Uruk.Soul is a meaningless word. Mind do not alter the brain, what alters is the sense organs., the surroundings.
There is no difference with inventions either; otherwise everyone would have all inventions. If it is about making agriculture easier they would have invented iron then and there, but they didn’t.
It all depends on need, and political structure and geography that gave rise to the political structure and luck.
The obvious shift is only because humans HAD to do agriculture. One cannot continue the same habit of a hunter gatherer in an agricultural society. Whether you think it or not doesn’t matter, what matter is whether history validates it and history do validates it.
No, he was paraphrasing someone as I told you. The original one was a person belonging to that time who was passing his judgment on Indians and why Indian should not get Dara. After that there is a comparison between the population of golden age of india and that age.
Again just because Steve tyler quoted from Ovid who copied Hesiod doesn't make it history.
Interesting, a human is not human, then what is he?
So virus got free will? Or parasites do? Does the animals that over grace do? Humans didn’t live in perfect harmony but caused the mass extinction of large animals in America and Australia. Neither does his closest cousin Chimpanzee do that. Just like humans they too destroy nature and have organized violence (war).
They were taken to Babylon as “slaves” and there they heard the MYTHOLOGICAL stories they adapted, nothing to do with history.
That will make it hearsay.
That clearly shows that the text is all fantasy. The Mesopotamians were no worse than any other humans.
According to Sumerian MYTHOLOGY one god among many turned up and built a city, and when later jews who were monotheists copied it as they obviously cannot make one among gods make city, they made it one man.
If Adam is man and rest of humans are also man, then who is god’s sons?
Why did god kill animals, if not for free will?
If adam is different from rest of humans, why did call them mankind?
When your god chose to create adam there were already humans in mesoptamia so that was not an area devoid of humans by your account. By the book’s account there were no humans before god created man.
You are continuously contradicting yourself that it doesn’t make any sense. Can you clearly state who is adam, who is mankind, who is nephilim and who is god’s sons?
Then why did he want to wipe the rest of animals? Genetic information is not static and it will not do any good if the number of animals decreases. And there won’t be much difference between a raven just 50 km away and by the time noah release those already the area will be occupied by wild animals that moved in to that area.
You have not defined free will in any objective way. So god is not omniscient. “Often”, “equivocations” are all fallacies. That means god is not omniscient and people are simply throwing down words without any understanding. So god is not omniscient and hence not omnipotent and he cannot obviously be omnipresent. So what is god?
We never lived in harmony with nature, no animals do. Bacteria, virus, herbivores all do destroy nature. So they all have free will?
What is nephilim. You said they are descendants of Adam. Rest of the humans including Noah too is descendants of Adam. So what is the difference? Why they alone live longer? How did the Nephilm escaped the flood? Why did god choose to kill some Nephilim while preserving the other all the while claiming that he is destroying everything except the select few in an Ark?
Doesn’t god know that whole earth doesn’t mean Middle East? Is god ignorant too?
Why does he want to spare some when most or even all of it are spared in regions that are just outside the flood? The ones who survive can spare the genetic information. And if you had noticed ravens can fly and animals can move and most animals and birds escape by flying or running away as a flood occurs. Only the very few which are trapped in places will be dead, the rest, especially birds escapes.
You do not define your words, but simply throw in words that can mean anything just like the “omniscient”. Can you tell me objectively what you mean by “god” and “exist” instead of using fallacies, then I will show you why.
You simply want the book to be true even if it defy all logic and reason. You are not looking for “truth” but trying to MAKE the bible true.
It became URUK culture when the city of Uruk started to exert its prominence in other cities and that occurred by 4100 to 3800. The city has to be well established before for its culture to be coped. Uruk was a city by 4500BC. It takes time for one culture to copy even in this internet age.
Uruk period starts with Uruk culture not city of Uruk, that is when the city came into prominence. And that is why there is an overlap of 300 to 1000 years between Ubaid and Uruk period.
So, let me get this straight. Because there's no physical/material evidence of a non-physical soul, you therefore deem it "meaningless". Do you really think all that reality is can only be what can be in some way observed with these five senses we only evolved to survive? Do you really think it's possible that all there is can only be what conforms to somehow being observable?
Let's take a step back and look at the bigger picture. We were talking about the backwards logic of a product of the brain somehow altering itself. Your intangiable ideas alter the decisions you make and the actions you take. They have a very real impact on the material world. Yeah they'd don't exist "materially". They're an abstract product of a biological mechanism. Yet somehow you can willingly and knowingly guide the behavior of this biological machine. You can "drive" it. Now how does that make sense, given all we know about the physical material world?
Matter follows rules. Laws. Consistently. If the mind is simply a product of the brain, then essentially what you're saying is that the brain changes itself.
So you're suggesting that the only reason the things invented in Sumer happened there had everything to do with the environment and general conditions they were born of? So were those conditions unique to that place that caused such a paradigm shift unlike anywhere else?
I know you want to just run with the assumption that there's nothing significant about what happened. That what happened there was just the normal progression of humanity, learning to live in a new social environment. But it simply doesn't match the evidence. The evidence says something significant happened in the Fertile Crescent. All you have to do is look at the rather abrupt spreading of agricultural practices all throughout the world, and the total lack of civilization explosions along the way. It didn't just happen over and over. It happened first in one of the most unlikely of places, a desert, and it was significant.
No, I'm sorry, but it just doesn't match what's observed. Farming spread like wildfire, but the rest of the behavior changes and such you keep wanting to attribute to it didn't. It should have been right behind the spread of farming, but it wasn't. This behavior shift did sweep across the world rather quickly, but not in the same pattern as farming, not at the same rate or time.
Again, the one quote I shared is an example of many. Seeing multiple records documenting something from different perspective and different places in the world makes it strongly possible that it is history. Yes, there are multiple cultures that spoke of a golden age, and you know what, they all describe human behavior during this 'golden age' the same. Like in India, for example ....
"In India, there is a similar view of history. According to traditional Hindu folklore, time moves cyclically through four different yugas, or ages. According to the ancient text, the Vaya Purana, during the first age, the Krita Yuga )or Perfect Age):
Human beings appropriated food which was produced from the essence of the earth.... They frequented the mountains and seas, and did not dwell in houses. They never sorrowed, were full of the quality of goodness, and supremely happy; they moved about at will and lived in continual delight.... There existed amont them not such things as gain or loss, friendshit or enmity or like or dislike." - Steve Taylor, The Fall
Look, as much as you want to act like humans are nothing more than the product of the animal kingdom, we're clearly not. No, a virus doesn't have free will. A virus is nature. But us mammals acting like a virus isn't. And what's this with condemning hunting and the food chain in general as somehow being out of whack with nature? Being in harmony with nature doesn't mean no killing? Killing is nature.
Humans, just as Genesis says, were put in charge of the natural world. So we had to take the reigns from the top of the food chain. Living amongst megafauna that was regularly going to make meals out of humans just wasn't going to work. So we, like many species before, took over. We couldn't have them competing with us for some of the same needs and resources.
How are you so certain? So you think these "mythological" stories are just pure imagination? That's your explanation? Just because that's what human brains do? We just make stuff up for no reason, or ape the stories of others and fool our own people into thinking it's actual history? So we can control them, right? Make up a god so they'll be controlled? For being the "more rational"/"science minded" explanation, it seems a little thin. And a little cynical.
All history is hearsay, wouldn't you say? Do we just not believe anyone who came before us because we didn't see it ourselves?
The only fantasy here is your assumption that the Mesopotamians were no worse than any other humans. They clearly were. The first defensive walls and organized militaries were born of this age. Civilizations became those who had the bigger army in that age in that particular part of the world first. So what you assume is true based on, I'm not sure what, doesn't match the evidence. But what we should expect to see if what I'm saying is true actually is.
There it is again. This assumption that they just lied and made this thing up. According to the bible, one "god" got kicked out of the land where the rest of them lived. If that didn't actually happen, then why didn't the Sumerians do the same and simplify their version? Just make it one invisible god, rather than a bunch of gods that live with them. In the temple they actually built for them?
As for "man", I think you're getting a little too hung up on that title. Get1 says humans were created in the same image and likeness. I think that just means in the same image and likeness as Adam/Eve would be.
Here, think about this. We know there were at least 7 mass extinctions in Earth's history that eventually led to us. So why is it exactly, if there is a God that created this natural world, why exactly do you not totally expect Him to resemble what we know nature to be? Like a flood that killed all these animals and a bunch of humans? Does that not sound to you like a continued pattern that remains consistent to the natural world we now know existed before? Why all of this expectation about killing animals and hunting megafauna means "bad"?
Look, I promise I'm not contradicting myself. I realize what I'm saying is different than what I'm sure you're used to, and it can be confusing. I'll try again, but I assure you I'm not contradicting myself.
Mankind is homo sapiens. Adam is the first 'son of God'. We "modern" humans are homo sapiens who have Adam/Eve descendants mixed into our family history. Indigenous are those humans still in existence today who are from a line that didn't interbreed with 'sons of God'.
Nephilim I think are what the people of that time called demigods. Like Gilgamesh or Achilles. The "heroes of old, men of renown".
I think you're overcomplicating this. Each living thing represents the latest link in a very long chain. So in that way every living thing has value. That genetic information isn't something you just want to throw away. Yeah, other similar species, others of the same species, probably exist elsewhere, but that makes them no less valuable.
What can I say, life feeds on life. That is nature. So how is that not in harmony with nature? Do you know what isn't in harmony with nature? This pie in the sky ideal you have that death is somehow bad. That's unnatural. There is nothing more natural than death, yet you're casting it as a bad/destructive thing. Death gives life meaning and urgency. Death makes room. Yet somehow you have this ideal that it's a bad thing. That's another example of us humans being out of mesh with nature.
God can see all time all at once. God exists apart from the universe. Because of that He also exists apart from space/time as we perceive it. So, from our perspective, God exists in every moment everywhere.
The only difference with free will is that anything without free will God would know before even doing it exactly what would happen. Because it's "of Him". But free will is a different story. By design. It's an independent will. A will that wants and think and behaves totally independent of His will.
You realize it wasn't God who wrote the bible, right? The bible is written by the humans who lived in that age. It's them saying the 'whole earth'.
Nephilim lived because they apparently lived outside of the flood zone. Probably why God commanded the Jewish people to take them out. Finish the flood's job.
I don't know if you realize this or not, but a lot of animals also die during floods.
God is the conscious being who made existence and made us. What more do you need?
Why would I do that? Why would I lie to myself and everyone else?
Like I said, I'm sure there were inhabitants in the Uruk area. But they were inhabitants who still lived in the Ubaid culture.Before looking for any evidence we have to decide what it is we are looking for. Do you deem “abracadabra” is nonexistent because there is no evidence? Just like that, the term “soul” is a meaningless one. So before looking for a soul, it has to be defined in a meaningful way.
Product of brain do not alter itself, it is brain that alter and the product changes. Brain changes itself, based on the stimulus it get, just like any other part of the body.
Yes, it was unique to that area at that point of time. That was why though the first agriculture was in Eridu, the first city is Uruk.
What evidence? There was trade and contact even before Sumer, so it is easy to see why it spread. Besides it was independently discovered in places.
It is desert that make it more likely, in a desert people have to find a means to sustain themselves aby increasing the production from the land. The Natufians had enough food that is why even though they settled they didn’t invented agriculture.
You mean wild fire take centuries to spread? Then why still there are hunter gatherers? It is not farming that spread like wild fire but people with agriculture. Agriculture communities have more numbers and better organization that they can displace indigenous societies. So for the indigenous societies it was either do agriculture or die. Places are not suitable for agriculture is left for hunter gatherers even today.
That shows human beings everywhere think the same, not that it is history. Indians also thought that in satya yuga people lived for thousands of years. In that age the humans beings were hundred times bigger than the present humans and humans could easily go to the abode of gods. Is that true too?
We are at the top of the food chain doesn’t mean we are in control of all. If that was the case there shouldn’t be any diseases. You are continuously saying about this free will, but what is it? You are simply throwing out a term that has no meaning, which you yourself do not understand.
We make stories for a reason but that doesn’t mean they are historical. If that was the case Aesop’s fable and Iliad would be histories. We make up a god even before the stories. Mythological stories are not writing history, their intention and meaning is different.
Gods are not made to control, that is an incidental byproduct.
As you said it was not a worldwide flood, it is what they thought. They also thought that there was a god behind it. What they thought wouldn’t make history but what happened do.
Do we just believe anyone because they came before us?
They have to build walls to prevent attack. If you have not noticed, walls are defensive only. Yes civilizations became those with bigger armies and that is what made civilizations to built and enlarge. Otherwise we would still in hunter gatherer stages. But all societies had armies; civilizations could mobilize more army and keep it in field for a longer time is the only difference. Hunter gatherers the army is very small to be insignificant and they can’t field it for a longer time as they have to hunt for food. But still they used to raze nearby tribes and gather females just like our chimpanzee cousins.
So where they telling the truth when they said there are multiple gods?
??? They lied? Then Aesop and Charles Dickens would be big liars. They wrote a story thinking what would have happened, that is all. Bible is simply a transliteration of Sumerian myth, so what bible said doesn’t even matter when it comes to Sumerian stories.
In genesis one it says god created man, in 2 also it says the same and in 5 also it says the same making it clear that the man of 1 and 2 are the same. You are the one who say man is different in one and two.
The only mass extinction in bible is after the appearance of humans but the mass extinctions you are talking about happened before humans. And there is NO FLOOD that killed all humans or animals. Mass extinctions are not caused by floods.
Bible also said that there won’t be any flood after that flood but there was a bigger flood in 3800BC.
Mankind is homo sapiens, Adam should also be a homo sapiens otherwise they cannot interbreed.
If they were different there should be a different human species we can find in indigenous cultures but there is none.
If they are the same that means gen is describing the same event as it is, you are modifying it to fit your theories.
If the descendants of Adam are sons of god then they are all supposed to be dead by Noah’s flood then there is no chance that jews can meet. But incidentally jews too are nephilim.
You are the one who complicate it by outing the unnecessary argument of genetic information.
The genetic information in large are where the species intermingle will generally be the same and preserving just 2 or 7 pairs is not going to change. The genetic information of crow in Eridu or Kish will be the same. If a small flood is going to destroy genetic information then there wouldn’t be any species left now.
You also didn’t tell me why god decided to kill animals in the first place and why did he say he is going to exterminate ALL THAT HE CREATED?
You still haven’t said what free will is.
Life do not always feed on life, plants feed on nonliving things.
Rest of what you say is irrelevant.
I think you are simply throwing words without actually meaning anything.
You also know that it is them who said there was a flood or god, right? They are wrong in that too. There was a flood that involved multiple cities in 2850 BC and they had no way explaining that hence they made that story which gradually got elaborated.
If Nephilm lived outside the flood zone who was god actually trying to kill?
I think you didn’t read what I said. I said the few of the animals that are dead are trapped and cannot escape. Lot of animals die, not ALL of the animals so there is no need to preserve any genetic information, the ones that escape is enough to keep it.
Made existence? What does that mean?
God is a conscious being. I think you agree that we too are conscious beings. So you agree that there is no need for a conscious being to be created. So there is no need for us to be “made”.
To be rational one has to define his crucial words objectively, you haven’t done that yet.
You ask yourself? Why do you propose all the change in genesis and accept a theory with an obvious hole(a local flood that killed all but not all, killed people who are miles away from the flood) in it?
There were inhabitants and they build a city and became Uruk culture which got established by 4500BC and PROMINENT by 4100 BC and hence the culture spread to the surrounding cities and became Uruk culture of lower Mesopotamia completely by 3800BC. The flood has no role there.In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.
God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth
Then God said, "Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind."
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished.2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Then the LORD God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and there he placed the man he had made. The LORD God made all sorts of trees grow up from the ground--trees that were beautiful and that produced delicious fruit. In the middle of the garden he placed the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The LORD God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and watch over it.
And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.
This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.
So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and BEAST, CREEPING THING AND BIRDS OF THE AIR, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
So according to genesis god created humans from dust after creating plants and animals and placed in the garden. And because HE COULDN”T FIND A COMPANION for man he created eve. Then at the time of Noah he decided to destroy ALL ANIMALS AND BIRDS he created except a few.
Now you say god created man, then created another man anew from dust and for some unknown reason companion eve had to created though there were plenty of other females, and his descendants did marry them. It is also unknown why Adam didn't see the females though god brought everything he created in front of him to give him a companion. You also say that sometimes Adams descendants are called god’s son while other times they are called man though you don’t specify when. You also said that though god obviously say that he is going to kill ALL THAT HE CREATED except a few, he was actually bluffing.
Am I right?
You also say that Adam was born in 5400 BC, his son Cain went and built Eridu which was destroyed in a flood in 4000BC and all people in Eridu was dead on a flood that time [though we have no evidence of a flood that time in Eridu but only in Ur]. You also say that it is the flood in Eridu that ended Ubaid culture and started Uruk culture.
Also all descendants of Adam except Noah is dead is what bible says and you say there are adam's descendants even in germany and all of them survived. You also say that indigenous people are somehow different from others but can't say how.
So which all cities and places were affected by the flood?Can someone who only lives 120 years really be a companion to someone who lives 1000?
There is no difference between 'sons of God' and men. 'Sons of God' are so because they are born of Adam's line.
The flood did kill 'all' in that region. I think the purpose was clearing the region for what was to come.
Those descendants of Noah who survived and spread to other lands are the families of Noah's sons. They survived the flood, then about a century later, got spread all through the land.
I explained exactly how indigenous people are different. They are matrist, while 'modern' humans are patrist.
The flood happened in southern Mesopotamia.The same way Cain married. Again the 1000 years is just mythology. When you say a man was created from dust and he lived 1000 years you are not dealing history but mythology.
Then all are nephilim except those who are born to adam and eve. So the sons of Cain are also nephilm because he married normal humans, but bible do not call them nephilms!
Which region and why? Who did god chose to kill people from that particular area when the descendants of Adam are spread all over Eurasia??
There were other people who lived everywhere, so they cannot simply spread everywhere. Then Adams descendants there in all regions, according to you.
They are not. Hunter gather societies are egalitarian, but the females moves out of the group and join other groups. Agricultural societies are either patrilineal or matrilineal not matriarchal. The very few who are thought to be matriarchal are thought to be so based on grave goods.
Which cities of Mesopotamia?
You gain side stepped the main issue,
“Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image,
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed
This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created”
See it makes clear than god only created once and he created Adam/Man. There was no other creation of man.
God said he will destroy all animals he created, not animals in a specific region. Why did god said that and why did he kill animals?
It has been. We've defined it as something you're not going to be able to "look" for. Think about it this way. What is it that you think we should see, that we do not, that would convince you the soul is real? What would positive confirmation of a soul look like exactly?
But outside stimulus is not the only thing that changes the brain. Do you not make decisions, not based on newly gained information, but rather on reassessing information already gained? Like, for example, let's say you decided to stop drinking soft drinks. Now, anytime the decision comes up to choose something to drink, or something to buy, you've altered the brain to not choose soft drinks. This isn't from outside stimuli. This is internal. This is the mind, the product of the brain, changing the brain, is it not?
But it wasn't unique. Farming was adopted in every conceivable landscape, yet nothing like this happened elsewhere. Not until the people of that region carried it with them. Where's one other place where the things found in Sumer happened elsewhere independently?
But what's less suitable for agriculture than a desert? The evidence documented in those books shows a clear progression through behavior change. There are still hunter-gatherers because there are cultures that don't breed outside of their ancestral roots.
But that isn't true. If it were true then we should see the same thing duplicated over and over again. We don't. Only cultues around the Medeterranian spoke of gods as they did. If it were as you say then we should see that same explanation all throughout the world. We don't.
What do you mean there would be no diseases? We are clearly in control. We run this planet. We inhabit every bit of it that we choose to.
I understand free will. It is you that rejects the description because it assumes a God. Free will is a will apart from natural instinct.
What is their intention? How do you know there wasn't a god? How do you know some of it's true, but that part isn't? By what standard do you determine what is true and what isn't?
No. That's why we validate. That's what I'm doing. But you, you're deciding ahead of time and can and can't be true, defining prematurely what the answers can and cannot be.
Right, walls are defensive, but defensive walls didn't begin to show up until this age. Necessity breeds invention. Before, it wasn't necessary. Something changed to make it necessary.
There you go again, assuming you already know what's true. Defining answers prematurely. That's the kind of thinking that keeps us in the dark and thinking the Earth is flat for millennia.
Yes, from their perspective. There were numerous beings, all of the same family, who lived lived nearly 10 times that of a mortal human.
The sequence of events between 1 and 2 don't even match. How could they be the same if the sequence of events are different?
"The first thing to note is that there is, in fact, an embarrassment of riches for anyone looking for evidence of a massive flood in ancient Mesopotamia. A page at Livius.org provides dates for four possible eras for the biblical flood:
The end of the Ubaid period (Ur, c. 4000-3600 BC)
The end of the Jemdet Nasr period (Uruk and Kish, c. 2900 BC)
The end of the Early Dynastic I (“EDI”) period (Shurrupak, c. 2800 BC)
The middle of the Early Dynastic III period (Kish, c. 2500 BC) - http://pursiful.com/2008/01/04/can-the- … sis-flood/
They interbred. We only just discovered that homo sapiens and neanderthal interbreed. And the only way we can determine that is that we have DNA evidence of both early homo sapiens and neanderthal to use to compare.
The Jews came long after the integration of Nephilim and humans, so they were no longer recognizable as such. Noah and his sons survived, and they are the ones that went out into the world.
He's flooding the region and clearing it of the harmful element that had spread there so when the flood waters subsided they could begin anew without the contaminant that had caused the problem in the first place. Just like anyone trying to breed particular favorable traits, God was controlling the environment to achieve a desired outcome.
I have. Organic organisms only feed on organic things. Life can't sustain eating rocks.
Irrelevant says you, but I still haven't been able to get you to explain by what standards you deem whether or not something is irrelevant.
Meaning you don't understand? If God created the universe, and time and space came into existence at the same moment the universe did, then God exists apart from the universe as well as time and space. So, from our perspective, God is the same, unchanged by time, in every moment everywhere. That's just the nature of what's described in the context of how we now understand it.
The first thing God told the Jews to do is go to Hebron and kill the inhabitants there. It turns out those who lived there are those who escaped the flood.
How do you know they were wrong? Because it doesn't 'seem' right to you?
Says you. But you can't know that. You can't know that the ones that escaped is 'enough'.
What? God existed before time and space. So in that environment something being 'made' or having a beginning is irrelevant. God being eternal matches up with what we know about the environment before the universe.
I propose a hypothesis, without changing any of the text, that shows the events of Genesis line up with actual events in history. Read in that context the story is much more grounded and actually begins to explain things not yet understood. It's about learning truth and gaining better understanding by using what's available to us.
There is a flood that's dated to the end of the Ubaid. A flood that lines up with the end of a culture. Clearly, it played a role.We would see nothing because soul is simply a term that does not specify anything. So there is no point in looking. Positive confirmation of soul will be a definition first and foremost.
No, for that the brain already has to change from inside. You are only viewing the outcome. It is not “me” but the brain that decides to stop based on the previous inputs.
It was not farming but domestication of plants and animals started and it started immediately after the last ice age. The first fields were in Ireland and Mehrgarh in Pakistan. Metallurgy was invented in Yangsao in China in 5000BC. Only irrigation was invented in Sumer because they were forced to as it was a rainless area and for irrigation people need to co-operate. That paved the way for more cooperation and finally hierarchy. But the same was independently discovered in China and America. Once hierarchy and politics formed the growth became more rapid.
Agriculture was present in Ireland, Indus, China…… It was not agriculture but irrigation that mattered and irrigation is needed in a desert. You read history not some revisionists fools who ignore most data..
There are still hunter gathers has nothing to do with breeding.
Gods were spoken of by all cultures even before Mediterranean. It started as ”Ancestor” worship and later shifted to god that’s all. It only depends on the local conditions and politics.
If we are in control why do many people die of swine flu, Ebola, TB…… the list is long? We run this planet? Don’t make me laugh.
“We inhabit every bit of it that we choose to. “
So do rats and cockroaches!
Free will is a will apart from natural instinct?? What is “natural instinct”?
By logic and reason.
You are not validating, you are collecting bits and pieces that fit and discarding anything that do not.
One build defensive walls when attack is from outside not inside.
Defy logic and reason. Magic works only in imaginary world.
You yourself said it is not a worldwide flood but only that is what they thought. Similarly it is not god who made humans or cause floods, that is what they thought. What they is irrelevant is what you yourself said and you are contradicting yourself again.
Yes it do not match, that is why it is called contradiction and the book as mythology. You are the one who insists it is history.
Didn’t I already tell you there are ,multiple floods in multiple cities at multiple times. What there is not is a single flood that covered almost all cities that caused the end of a culture.
I also told you about the flood in 2850BC which I said probably gave rise to the Sumerian legend as the legend was written in 2300BC. Bible is simple a transliteration of the old myth, old wine in new bottle.
We didn’t discover that homo and Neanderthal interbreed, that is a supposition based on some genetic studies. I hope you know that the first difference between two species is that they cannot interbred and produce a fertile offspring.
Your nephilim story is again contradictory. You say Nephilm is the son of Adam and said all except noah is dead. That means who ever left is the descendant of Noah. Then all the people will be the same there won’t be any difference between them as jews too are nephilim.
What harmful element? The species that ran away during the flood will return after the flood. Again the species noah had taken also will have the same problem.
You mean plants eat animals and plants? Plants take carbon dioxide, water and nitrogen not living things or organic things and convert it into organic things.
Because what you said has no meaning or it matters to what I said.
Do you know what “time”, “space”, “universe” or “exist” means?
Contextual understanding is not for rational people. Rational people make clear what they say to avoid the fallacy of equivocation. Claiming rationality and being rational is different.
Because it is nonsense and contradictory. You and bible said that ALL except Noah and his chosen few were dead then contradict that by saying there were some others who escaped. Do you understand how ridiculous it sounds?
There is a worldwide flood. Every descendant of Adam except Noah and his family died. No it was a regional flood, but people in Germany too died. Well, not everyone died, even though it was vast flood and God has to take animals in the ark to preserve some escaped. Did they fly away?
Even if none escapes there are “enough” in the surrounding regions to continue any species otherwise after every flood there won’t be any species left in the area.
Sorry about that, but I had to.
If conscious beings are to be made, then god is also made. You were saying something about being logical?
The events of genesis do not line up with any history. You ignore some change some [both history and the book] to make it appear that it is history. The book itself is nonsense, human beings being made twice according to you, or once from dust by a superhuman then go on contradicting each.
One there is no definite time for the end of Ubaid culture, it varies over centuries and it was merely replaced by Uruk culture. There was no flood in 4000BC but drought. And as you can see
Ubaid culture spreads a large are and there certainly never was a flood to that extent in the last 10000 years. So you are simply repeating untenable things.
“ The end of the Ubaid period (Ur, c. 4000-3600 BC)
This is what you yourself wrote just above, guess you didn’t read it.
That's such a cop-out. A soul was never billed to be something physical or material. Yet you and others require material proof. If that were possible then it wouldn't be what it's billed to be. Basically, you're saying that human intuition means nothing. That unless we can prove something materially, it's not even worth assigning any value to. Nevermind our intuition has played a major role in us becoming the species we've become. It's proved beneficial and helpful to our survival in some way for it to be here now. And that human intuition is why people speak of having a soul. That's what they feel, or sense. Just not with their senses.
That's ridiculous. Are you saying it changes outside of your control? Or are you saying the brain, to change itself, goes through the totally unnecessary step of going through processing in the mind construct just to alter some other part of itself? Seems inefficient at the very least. So do you not buy into free will? Are you a determinist?
So you're saying irrigation in particular is the catalyst behind hierarchy and politics? So you should be able to back that up with evidence. We can trace the introduction of irrigation and we can track the establishment of hierarchy and politics. If what you're saying is true then you should be able to show it.
How do you know there still being hunter gatherers has nothing to do with breeding. The fact is the cultures that admit to intermingling with these 'different acting beings' are the ones that changed. Those that didn't, like indigenous cultures that don't mix outside of the group, didn't. That's how a psychological change would most likely propagate. That's how evolution in general works.
I do read history. And irrigation is another direct result of this change. The concept of rerouting natural springs came with the behavior change. The change happened first. It's reflected in the graves.
That's just another imagined assumption. I've got an evidence based hypothesis that has successfully predicted numerous events and conditions. It's fine to do as you're doing and try to imagine an explanation. I did that as well. But then I proved the hypothesis accurate through doing the due diligence.
Natural instinct is what makes animals animals and what makes us different. Animals are animals, across the globe, no matter the conditions, we know what to expect. Humans run the planet. From space, which species has lit the planet? Which species has altered the landscape? Please, don't tell me you're actually going to try to take up the argument that humans aren't the dominant species on the planet.
We're surviving in spite of swine flu, Ebola, and TB. We've figured out how to avoid them or beat them if necessary.
No, because that same kind of logic and reason could very well cause one to dismiss dinosaurs as impossible because giant reptiles just don't happen in this world by what we've seen. The fact is, things have happened that haven't happened during our time on this planet. That's logic and reason. Being aware of the fact that you can't rule these things out as impossible. The fact that are shows a hole in your logic and reason.
What you don't seem to get is that I'm not just "collecting bits and pieces". I formed a hypothesis, then made predictions, then in each case found exactly what was predicted exactly where it was predicted.
Right, which didn't happen until the after the Ubaid. After the Egyptians and others came. After, in other words, free will transformed the landscape.
Again, this is a flaw in your logic and reason. It seems inconceivable that all this universe is came expanding out from a single point smaller than the smallest part of an atom. But it turns out it seems that's true. What you're doing is what's gotten in humanity's way for centuries. It's people thinking they already know better. You don't. That's not logic and reason. That's a lack of.
Exactly. Just dismiss this book that has had a dramatic impact on humanity in every age since it's inception. I'm sure you're right. There's nothing to it and it's just as easy as that to dismiss because you caught a contradiction.
Read the rest of that article I linked to. It goes into extensive detail to explain why the first flood, at the end of the Ubaid, is most likely the one the Sumerian flood is based on. It's an interesting read if you're into Sumerian mythology.
Wrong, because all there was for Noah and his sons to interbreed with were humans. Only four males and before long, with so many homo sapiens in the mix, they become indistinguishable. That's why I showed you that chart. The long lives got gradually shorter, and they all started to die around the same time. Before long they were just legend.
Free will is the harmful element. It got out of check. Yes species that escaped the flood might come back. Probably not because the flood just removed food resources, but eventually, yeah, some might come back.
What do you want me to say? Homo sapiens is not evil, or bad. It's necessary to survival. Homo sapiens and neanderthal wiping out megafauna is the same thing. That IS nature.
What? Yes I do know what they mean. Do you know what it means for these things to come into existence at a point? And that if there's anything that exists beyond those things then it isn't holden to those things? So, the way God was described thousands of years ago actually conforms with how we now understand things to be.
No, no, no. Only people in the past few centuries who read this story read it to mean a global flood. Those of us who have the benefit of modern knowledge should be able to recognize the fact that these authors had no way of being able to report on the condition of the entire planet. It's only words chosen by those doing the translating that make it seem to be global. It's simply a matter of understanding.
Not necessarily. You're assuming something you can't know.
Uh, yeah, and something that exists before time doesn't require being "made". That's a concept that only really applies to those of us who are products of this universe. You and I exist within time, always have, so it seems everything needs a beginning because that's been our experience. But before time existed? Irrelevant. That's just a fact.
Yeah, I get it that you've already made up your mind based on bad information that it contradicts. This one clarification to the story resolves any and all contradictions.
I've already covered the spread out times of these events. Dating archaeologically using earth's strata is far from an exact science."That's such a cop-out. A soul was never billed to be something physical or material. Yet you and others require material proof. If that were possible then it wouldn't be what it's billed to be. Basically, you're saying that human intuition means nothing. That unless we can prove something materially, it's not even worth assigning any value to. Nevermind our intuition has played a major role in us becoming the species we've become. It's proved beneficial and helpful to our survival in some way for it to be here now. And that human intuition is why people speak of having a soul. That's what they feel, or sense. Just not with their senses."
Nonsense. If you can't provide physical proof, provide some other kind; anything but a bald statement of existence without any evidence whatsoever. And no, your opinion is not sufficient and neither are a million unsupported opinions. How? Your problem - you made the statement, back it up.
Human intuition is a rapid examination of personal history and experience, old wives tales, and whatever else has been heard. Which of those provides evidence for a soul and is it to be believed?
Every time intuition has proven to be useful to man, it has also been proven to be true and correct. Not just assumed so - from that sort of rationale we got such things as a flat earth that the sun went around. If your intuition of a soul is found to be useful it will also have produced evidence supporting it.
But intuition isn't why people speak of having a soul. They do so because they want a god, don't want death and have been told there is a soul. They also wonder just how their mind and body work, but intuition simply does not lead to an invisible, undetectable, undefined thing that no two people have the same definition of. That's not intuition working; it's imagination and the two are NOT the same.What other kind? Sound logic and reason? I think I've done that. That's all there is beyond material/observable proof. Just walk through the process of the mind, being a product of the brain, then altering the brain, physically. Just think that through and tell me a non-physical soul doesn't fit right into the equation.
I think you're selling intuition short. Which seems to be a go-to answer for you so-called "secular humanists".
There will be no evidence. There can't be. But intuition should also tell you that the chances of everything in the natural world will conform to what can be observable and detectable is nill. The mind in itself disproves that. We still can't 'observe' the mind. The only reason you and I and "experts" acknowledge its existence is because we each experience it beyond doubt.
It's intuition that tells us that what we are doesn't just cease to be when the body dies. That what we are is more than just a product. As usual, it's the position of the "secular humanist" to reduce humans down to being nothing significant.No, you haven't done that. All you've said is that "I don't understand how the mind works, so propose a 'soul', whatever that might mean. Therefore, there is a 'soul' because I say so". Logically, the statement is a complete failure and not to be trusted at all. Reason says the same thing; making up things from imagination is not evidence they are true or real, just that the imagination was at work.
We can't observe emotions, either, although we CAN see the effect of them. Lots of things we can't see, but they are all attributes that we have defined. Which you have failed to do, when declaring a soul. Unlike love, hate, sadness, the soul is proposed as a real thing, just one not of this universe.
No, intuition does NOT tell us that death is not the end. Intuition is based, at the root, in past experiences and not a single person has ever seen the dead but alive that you are talking about. Not intuition, then, but simply imagination that has been allowed to take over reason and propose a reality that does not exist.
Humans are extremely significant...to humans. Not to the universe. Not to the stars, not even to the planet we inhabit (think what a single chunk of rock did in a flash compared to what humans have done in millions of years). Only the wild imagination of the believers assign a value to the species that has to be accepted by the rest of the universe.The mind lacks evidence as well. We have as much proof the mind exists as we do a soul.
Humans are significant in general. We are the only clusters of matter in all the known universe that is capable of choosing our behavior through thought and reason.But the mind is not a thing, something that survives without the infrastructure of the body. It is a concept, like emotions, that humans have defined mostly for communication purposes.
Or so I see (and define) it as. Do you have a different definition? One that can be accepted without the necessity of proving that a thing exists?
And you have checked each planet in that known universe? Or does your "known universe" consist of a single planet out of the uncountable trillions in what the rest of us term the known universe?Known universe as in all we know of the universe.
Right, and a soul has been defined mostly for communication purposes as well. The mind most definitely exists, yet cannot be imperically proven to exist. In other words, there are things that do indeed exist that cannot be observed. That doesn't mean we can't account for them or speak of them, that just means we have no concrete grounds from which to start from.Great! we know of Europa, Enceladus, Titan and Mars (along with 100 or so additional non-stellar bodies). Have you checked each for intelligent life, or do you just make the statement there is none without ever trying to find out?
The soul, according to you, is an undefined thing that exists outside our body (and the universe for that matter). The mind, according to me, is an attribute OF the body and is not separate from it. Much like the color blue in your eyes it is a defined characteristic and not a physical thing. One exists, according to you, but the other exists only in a dictionary written by the species Homo Sapiens and does not exist outside of that.There's no need for me to check. I'm sure we'll all be made aware if intelligent life were ever found.
I didn't say anything about the soul existing outside of the body. The body is a vessel through which the non-material soul is capable of interacting with the material world.That single statement kind of says it all, doesn't it? "There's no need for me to check." Knowing very well that no one else has checked either, you are quite confident in making the statement that no other intelligence exists because...because you believe and that's all that is necessary.
(Side question - would discovery and interaction with other intelligent life destroy your belief, or would you integrate it into your belief system so as to retain it regardless?)
Your two statements are inconsistent and at odds with each other. If the body is a vessel through which a soul can interact, then it exists outside that body by definition. Particularly as it still exists after the body has disintegrated into dust.
But you also encounter an even more important difficulty with your definition; the inability to show the non-material "universe" that the soul is in. And yes, you DO require that non-material "universe" as you differentiate it from the "material world".
You can imagine such a place, you can state it exists, you can live your life as if does. What you cannot do is provide any evidence at all that it does; your imaginative construction does not provide that at all and your intuition cannot help because it has never experienced it either.What do you mean no one else has checked? Ever heard of SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence)? I'm simply speaking about all we know about the universe thus far. If it is ever proven that there are other intelligent beings out there I wouldn't be surprised.
How exactly do you expect anyone to provide any kind of evidence of something non-material? Like I said, there's no evidence the mind exists. Do you deny it exists? Can you prove it? You can imagine it exists, you can state it exists, you can live your life as if it does. What you cannot do is provide any evidence at all that it does. Does any of that mean it doesn't exist?Sure! SETI looks for radio signals from a tiny portion of possibilities. Consider how long we've been sending signals; around 100 years. Now consider that more and more of our signals are becoming fiber-optics or other means that can't be detected from space, and that percentage is growing all the time. It would appear that an intelligent species is likely to put out radio that we can detect for only a very small portion of their existence and that it must be done in a very specific time frame dependent on how far away they are; it seems unlikely that we will pick that up.
But you do know that lack of positive SETI results does not, in any manner, show that there is nothing out there. So why make the statement that there is not? Just belief, used to reinforce a belief system that has no evidence to support it. A logical fallacy.
You claim it is there, you provide the proof. I said that before; it is not up to me (or any other listener) to do the job for you or even tell you how to do it. So far all you've offered is your personal belief and lots of logically fallacious statements.
If you want MY agreement there is a mind you will have to define it, and with a definition that can be proven one way or the other. Personally, I think (think!) the mind is the combination of neural activity and the pattern of neurons in the brain. Both can be shown as existing and when either one is lacking, so is the mind. If either one changes significantly, so does the mind. Memory, the essential you and thus a good deal of the mind, apparently resides in that pattern of interconnections; change it and the memory (mind) changes. All of which would be evidence that the mind is what I think of it as, although not proof. Can you provide any other concept that can be tested/checked?I wasn't even stating that there's no intelligent life out there. And even if there were it would make them, and us, no less significant, for the same reason. Because most matter in the universe behaves as it does because of laws, not through will. So no matter if other intelligent beings exist or not, humans are still significant beyond our own definitions.
If you understand the nature of what we're speaking of, something that is non-material/spiritual, then you should already know not to expect evidence. Otherwise it would not be what we're speaking of. It would be something else. So to request or demand evidence is a fallacy.
Yet, with the same lack of evidence of the mind, you still agree it exists, right? That's the whole point. You acknowledge the existence of something that lacks evidence of existing. So you acknowledge that not everything that exists can be proven to exist. So, the inability to prove it does not mean it doesn't exist. It only means that it's very nature is non-material. Hence, "proof" of the non-material.
So to only allow for that which can be proven is a fallacy. Obviously reality, as usual, proves to be more than what we can define or observe empirically.You most certainly DID say there are no intelligent ET's: "We are the only clusters of matter in all the known universe that is capable of choosing our behavior through thought and reason." You also indicated that, presumably because of that statement, that "Humans are significant in general."
Nor does the sophistry that because we find intelligence a good thing it means we are significant to the stars mean much. You still can't flap your arms and fly, you must eat to survive and you will once again deteriorate into the atoms of which you are formed. Exactly like everything else in the universe. That we are a little more capable of modifying our environment is not significant in the bigger picture of the universe: at absolute best we can affect .0000000000000000000000000000000000000001% (or some other ridiculous figure) of it, and I'm sure you will agree that is in insignificant amount.
Yes, I understand it cannot be proven, which is why you will never find me indicating that it exists. You don't seem bothered by that small technicality, though, and are quite willing to make statements you cannot support.
I agree that MY definition of a mind exists, as it has at least some evidence to support it. You still haven't given a definition outside of something you fail to describe but DO indicate it resides in another dimension, universe or other place you also cannot support the existence of. See the difference?
It is only obvious to you because you believe your imaginary spiritual, or immaterial, world. Take that away and it isn't obvious at all that there is anything we cannot detect with experience and knowledge. As there is no evidence of the spiritual, take it out and what you have left is what we can detect, and only that will we ever know to be real. The rest will remain forever entombed in the field of imagination as by definition we can never know it.That's why I said "known universe". That allows for "unknown universe", like ETs and such. But like I said, even if there are intelligent ET's, that just means that THEY and WE are significant. Even with a whole universe full of ET's, we're still a small percentage of the total matter in this universe. We're the small percentage that thinks and willfully chooses to do what we want. THAT is the bigger picture. Just think about how much matter is in the universe compared to how much matter you are made of. Now, you actually get to live for handful of decades, doing whatever you want to do. The fact that we're temporary and "return to dust" makes it that much more significant. We're like a little cyclone in the wind that's only alive and twirling for a moment. Then it stops. There is nothing more significant than that.
I support the statements I make with logic and reason. I acknowledge that not all can be empirically proven, that there is indeed more to the story than what can be materially proven, then logically discuss what else could be out there beyond our ability to detect it.
"I agree that MY definition of a mind exists, as it has at least some evidence to support it.
Okay, then do you not at least acknowledge that some of the evidence I've brought to your attention has at least the same level of circumstantial relevance?
"It is only obvious to you because you believe your imaginary spiritual, or immaterial, world."
I have just justified, logically, that there is more to reality than what can be observed. So, you have to allow for that when considering the full picture. I acknowledge that some of the answer is beyond the fringe of what's observable.
"Take that away and it isn't obvious at all that there is anything we cannot detect with experience and knowledge. As there is no evidence of the spiritual, take it out and what you have left is what we can detect, and only that will we ever know to be real.
Exactly. So, I'm using what can be observed and detected, to determine what cannot be seen. Afterall, the source material, the bible, makes a point to differentiate what is the physical world and what is the spiritual. Long before they knew it would be such a relevant part of the conversation. Like it says....
Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
2 Corinthianns 4:18 - So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.
And at least half of that second one has proven utterly true. That which is seen is temporary. All of it.You're just playing with words with the "unknown universe". A meaningless "explanation" of what you meant in an effort to back off the statement there are no ET's.
But whether that's true or not, you ARE assigning significance to the process of thinking - a process that the universe as a whole will not find significant at all. You can't significantly change that universe, after all, and thus remain forever totally insignificant to the vast number of stars, let alone atoms, in the universe. Nevertheless, it IS a defined attribute and every person has every right to assign significance according to how they see it. Not as to how others might see it, but only for themselves. You find yourself significant in terms of the universe as a whole; I do not, but that doesn't mean either one of us is "wrong" somehow.
Indeed you do...some of the time. Right up until you try to prove the unprovable, whereupon your "logic" becomes little but ignorance. "I don't know, so it must be true" is not logical. Just like the unsupported statement that there is more than can be materially proven, your "logic" is chock full of unsubstantiated opinion, not factual statements or premises.
No, not in the matter of a god or soul or mind. What I gave you IS circumstantial evidence and can be checked by anyone with the proper research skills; what you give is opinion and conclusions derived from opinion. In, I repeat, the matter of a god, soul or mind. Your evidence for historical matters appears well thought out and presented although I do note that others disagree with it.
No you haven't - you have made the statements but without any reasoning or evidence. Certainly not logic. (I speak here of things that we can NEVER observe or see the effects of. Not such things as an electron that we can use and bend to our will though we can never see one).
Well, now, that's in indeed a part of the problem - the source material. Anything in the book that relates or is about the spiritual has exactly the same evidence you do (nothing) and thus is to be believed exactly the same (not believed at all). In addition what you observe has been 100% natural and without need for a god or soul - that you attribute one or the other to the event/thing doesn't make it so regardless of how badly you wish it would.
OK - let's take a look at this quote. We'll start by removing anything denoting opinion or outright lie rather than proven fact, thus: "—— so that people are without excuse." Not much left, is there. All the stuff about a god, the stuff about attributing natural events to a god, and understanding natural events as god produced are all gone. And what is left is without meaning at all, but it is exactly that kind of stuff that you wish to use as "circumstantial evidence". Evidence of what? The ignorance or imagination of ancient people? That's all there is, after all.
And this is another example. You can have exactly zero idea if this universe is eternal or not. Certainly it will change from what it is now, but every indication is that it IS actually eternal - that it will be here forever. Similarly, the first half of the quote is the same thing; a statement without having even a trace of knowledge (or care) if it is true or not. The entire quote, then, is nonsense from a people wanting to support their belief by mouthing nonsense that they cannot possibly support with anything but more unsupported opinion.
Headly, you just have to know better. Your research appears, as I said, to be rational and well though out. Others may disagree with particulars, and it could be totally wrong, but you seem to have done a good job with it.
So what happened when it came to the god bit? All the research, all the reason, all the logic went straight out the window and was replaced with other opinion from ignorant barbarians that happen to share your delusion of a god. What happened to the Headly that did the original research - did he quietly crawl into the corner and remain there?
The text says God didn't find a suitable companion for Adam. That's what He was looking for. A companion.
Dinosaurs. That's all I should have to say at this point. They don't exist today, but at one time it was possible because it happened. You determining what is and isn't true based on what you deem possible is simply irrelevant.
The bible was calling them by a title that the contemporary readers would know them as.
The descendants of Adam weren't spread until Babel, which happened after the flood.
Yes, there were plenty of humans who lived elsewhere who did not die in the flood. But they were not influenced by free will.
I didn't say they were matriarchal. I said they were matrist.
I don't know. But I do know that what data we have is dated and far from complete. A good hypothesis might help steer investigation when the opportunity presents itself. My guess would be the southern-most cities.
The whole rest of the bible makes clear that other humans were around, meaning Adam and Eve could not have parented them all. The Egyptians and Sumerians already being around by the time Abraham came about should be a clue.
Let me ask you this. When Gen6 says 'sons of God' found 'daughters of humans' beautiful and married them, what does that mean do you think?The problem is you are not even able to tell me what that term means. If I change the term to “ashhjb” and wrote all that you have written, you would tell me that I am babbling. As long as you are not able to say what “soul” is all your point is moot. You cannot simply assert that something exist which you yourself do not know what.
There is no “processing in the mind”; the brain has some change which you notice as change of mind, all the processing is in the brain. Mind is the product of brain, not brain.
I said irrigation is one catalyst behind, not the sole catalyst. In Nile also the same happened, but in China it didn’t because there was enough rain. Another is politics, another is geography……
And of course, you yourself tracked it. You said that the first hierarchy was in Sumer, the first irrigation was also in Sumer, though the first settlement or agriculture was not there.
Because human beings everywhere today are the same with the same ability. It is not interbreeding that changed because cultures and technologies have evolved independently in many areas around the world. An indigenous child brought up in New York will not be any different from a New Yorker.
There is a sudden behavior change in 18th centuary, if your logic is employed a new type of human appeared after 18th. Irrigation is not the result of behavior change but economical and geographical change.
Since you do not use words properly, I can’t understand you. What is this hypothesis you are speaking about?
Humans are succumbing to Ebola and various diseases, TB is making come back. What do you mean by dominant? Humans are the most technologically advanced, otherwise there is no dominance.
And human beings are also the same, we can expect as much from him too.
Any person who uses logic and reason can know that dinosaurs are not impossible but magic is. I think you are equating experience to logic and reason.
After hypothesis, it is theory that comes, not predictions.
In other words there were attack from outside so they had to build walls to defend themselves, nothing to do with this “free will”.
A point is 2 dimensional, a circle that is drawn on a paper, like the dot you see at the end of a sentence. So there is no point in universe as universe is not a sheet of paper. And, no universe didn’t expand from a point either.
The fact that a book had dramatic impact doesn’t mean it is based on facts. People work on emotions most of the times, not reason. The book is contradictory and nonsense, there is no point in asserting otherwise.
It is interesting to read mythology but that doesn’t make it less mythological. There is no flood at the “end of Ubaid” as end of ubaid is not a single day or year nor Ubaid is a small region for a flood to obliterate.
Noah and his descendants are Nephilim according to you. So jews are nephilm, so are all the people in middle east, so it is nonsense to say jews meet nephilim, it is like saying jews met jews in Israel or Europeans met Europeans in Europe.
The bible says god fixed 120 even before the flood. So if some long lived nephilim escaped before the flood, the book and you are wrong in asserting that all descendants of Adam were dead except noah.
So the animals had free will? When a flood recedes from an area, plants will grow and immediately animals will come there and people from surrounding region. There is n o need for god to take any especially its only a few crows, doves, rats, mosquitoes, snakes and the like. Why would god want to preserve any of those anyway?
So how us it different from Humans killing each other?
Still you failed to say what those mean.
We should also be able to know that they have no way a knowing about a god behind creation or flood. That is also simply a matter of "understanding".
That was not the only flood in history.
Logic requires a premise, what is the premise, every conscious being needs creation. So whatever else you say is simply trying to hide the "special pleading".
Only you say plain nonsense like time exists . That means you neither understand what time or exist is. Your rationality is simply an assertion with no meaning.
You writing a new genesis or asserting a small flood as grand is not good information.
No you didn’t. I gave you the map but you can't say which cities are involved by flood. Mac Mallowan has shown that the flood of 4th millennia is a very localised event confined to Ur. Ubaid, as shown in the map, is all over the fertile crescent. If Ubaid culture is to be ended by flood it has the involve that large an area, but it didn't.
False anaology. God brought all things in existence before Adam and he named it but what did he name man?
Any living thing arise out of dust is nonsense.
By your argument Cains sons should be Nephilim but bible don't call them so. It only says that later meaning you are again making up.
You said Talheim people are descendants of Adam, Talheim is not in Eridu.
Free will, a meaningless word you yourself do not know what it means!
Same.
We have enough data to show that tjete is no flood in Eridu or Uruk in the said period. We have enough data to show that Ubaid culture was all over fertile crescent. You really want to ignore that right?
It also make clear that adam and eve are the FIRST humans created by god.
Another preexisting tradition which make Yahweh son of El. El has many sons and some of them married humans.
I think you know what a soul is. You're just using this coy approach to try to make a point about something being immaterial. The official defnition is ...
"the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
But I think you know that. Like I said, logic and reason should tell you that there's very little chance that all that exists in this universe will so conveniently conform to being observable by our five senses. The mind is a good example of this. We still to this day cannot observe the mind, yet we all accept that it's there because we all experience it first-hand. We can only really assume other humans like us have the same experience. The same must be done with the soul. It's an intangible that must be discussed as such. But far from having no meaning.
So then what role does the mind play in this process? Why doesn't the brain just make the necessary changes to itself. Why go through the whole mind process?
Actually, experts think the irrigation practices were taken from the Samarra culture to the north. I find it interesting that you're so quick to dismiss the book I referred you to, yet you won't hesitate to interject these theories. I've pointed it out before, but it bares repeating. The behavior change came first, then things like irrigation. It's the other way around.
What's this 18th century behavior change you're talking about. Tell me more.
And you don't find that the least bit odd? That human beings everywhere are so similar? Just look at the wide array of differences within a single species. Yet humans are nearly identical across the board. Probably due to the bottleneck that reduced mating pairs to less than 10,000 in Africa early in our evolution. That's significant, and I don't think it's an accident.
The hypothesis is the events of Genesis taken literally. Using Genesis I built a timeline and series of events as described. Then found where in history these events took place. Using this model I predicted dozens of things, events predicted in both time and place. In other words, the opposite of cherry-picking, which you accused me of doing.
That's nature. Nature has to kill each and every one of us eventually. That's what makes room for the next generation.
Wow, you really are going to try to make the argument that we're not the dominant species. Okay.
If not experience, by what standard are you categorizing what is and isn't possible?
Before you get to theory, you go about proving a hypothesis by making predictions and testing.
It has everything to do with free will. Free will caused the rise of multiple civilizations. And they began battling one another. Conflict is inevitable where free will exists.
Alright, it inflated out from a 'singularity' smaller than the smallest part of an atom.
No point? So you think we already have enough information to dismiss it as irrelevant nonsense? The dramatic impact means it's been meaningful in every age since its inception. Unlike anything else. If you don't see that as significant I don't know what to tell you.
Ubaid is a culture that at least in one Sumerian city, Ur, the flood played a direct role in ending. As in strata below the silt deposit had artifacts from Ubaid, and strata above had artifacts from Uruk.
Neither I nor the book are asserting that all descendants of Adam were dead. That's you and your 'global flood' insistence. The only two mentions in all the bible of the Nephilim should make it clear that the flood wasn't global, if you need something beyond dissecting the wording as you've been doing.
Because they have value.
Because it's unnatural. Humans before the change didn't kill one another 'naturally'.
Time - the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
Space - the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move.
Universe - all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos
Exist - have objective reality or being.
No way of knowing? The stories say this God interacted with them directly. So that's a way for them to know.
Right, but we don't know what animals in particular were spared or where all exactly each species existed.
"Every conscious being needs creation" is not a valid premise. So now I'm trying to hide something. So your approach seems to be arguing semantics over the meaning of words and accusing me of being purposefully dishonest.
Reading the story in the context of modern knowledge is good information.
There are two events that impacted the region. First, a flood. Then a dramatic climate change. It's probably the combination of the two that led to the Ubaid throughout the region.
Is it nonsense? We now know today that the same elements found in the 'dust/dirt' are the same elements we're made of.
Again, author is referring to them in a way that contemporary readers will understand.
Not at all. Go back and review the chart I included earlier. I'll post again if need be.
No, I'm acknowledging that the information we have is from the '20's.
If so then who were the others Cain feared?
Yahweh is not the son of El. El and yahweh are one and the same.We're getting totally off-point with all of this. Whether or not there are ET's is beside my original point. Like I said, it makes us no less significant.
The significance isn't specifically on thinking. It's willful action. Conscious deliberate actions taken following our own independent will. That's what makes us significant.
What unprovable am I trying to prove? Forming hypothesis based on available data is hardly "I don't know, so it must be true".
The statement that there is more than can be materially proven is logically sound.
I've told you multiple times that this has nothing to do with proving God. It's proving the events of genesis as being literal history. You keep rejecting what I'm saying based on an inaccurate premise. And the problem with what you gave me as "evidence" is that everything you claim as far as what's going on in the mind while these alterations and manipulations are happening can't be verified in any way.
Yes I did. My evidence is the mind. It's something we can never observe. Brain function does not equal observing the mind. Therefore, the mind is an example of something that exists that can't be imperically verified or observed. So, logically, it's probably not the only thing.
That right there shows the error in your logic. By these same standards you should deem the mind as something to "Not be believed at all". Again, even speaking of proof of something that isn't material is a logical fallacy. Logic is clearly on my side.
I'm showing how the hypothesized God remains to be consistent with the source that details Him.
Wait, what? the universe is most definitely not eternal and is heading for a definite end. And there's significant evidence to back it up. The entirety of the knowledge base of what we've learned scientifically backs up the second half of that statement. Everything that can be seen is temporary. Everything has a beginning and and end. It is ALL finite.
I'm not sure what you mean about the "Headly that did the original research". It's still me. For over three years now I've been speaking of the exact same explanation. I haven't changed a stitch of it. The bit about the mythological gods is just further support of my hypothesis. If the events of Genesis happened in an already populated world then they would have bore witness to these characters and events. The writings of these ancient mythologies, therefore, further support the hypothesis because they are exactly what is expected."The statement that there is more than can be materially proven is logically sound."
Then develop the logic. Show a premise, followed by logically correct steps to that conclusion. Merely saying it is so doesn't make it logical.
"I've told you multiple times that this has nothing to do with proving God. It's proving the events of genesis as being literal history. You keep rejecting what I'm saying based on an inaccurate premise. And the problem with what you gave me as "evidence" is that everything you claim as far as what's going on in the mind while these alterations and manipulations are happening can't be verified in any way."
"the universe is most definitely not eternal and is heading for a definite end"
No it's not - current ideas are that stars will die and move apart, but the universe will remain forever. It will not disappear somehow, just grow lonely and cold. Which is what I said; it will change but it will last forever.
If you think that changing the neural pathways and connections doesn't change the mind you've never lived with someone that's had a severe stroke. I absolutely assure that the mind changes; the person will no longer react emotionally nor reason the same as they did before the stroke.
Yes, the myths are what are expected. That they are actually true instead of mythical is NOT what is expected. The people made up a god, yes, but the god is only myth and has no basis in reality, yet you continue to insist that because the people made up that god then it must be there and must be real. And no, that one culture out of dozens did specific things does not logically support the hypothesis that a god did it just for them. Even if it WAS only the one culture it still wouldn't support that hypothesis. And finally even if it was only the one culture and they even SAID it was a god (which they did) it STILL doesn't support the hypothesis of a living, breathing ET that came to earth and made the changes happen.
I did! I gave you an example of something we both know to exist that can't be observed in any way. The mind. So, logic follows, it's probably not the only thing that exists that can't be observed.
Unless I'm behind on my reading, all current ideas of the universe include it coming to an end in one form or another. The most standard of these says the universe will eventually run out of energy and go cold. It'll finally expand to a point that there's no longer heat or energy. It can't just perpetually 'go on'.
I don't doubt that and I'm not arguing that.
You continue to insist they just made them up, without actually knowing that. You assume they're made up because, yes, in this day and age in what we've observed things like that are not reality. But neither are dinosaurs. That doesn't mean they never existed.
I'm not insisting that they're real. I'm simply pointing out that if there were real, then what those people wrote about is exactly what we should expect to see. It's, in fact, the best explanation considering we can't just go with your conclusion that they just made them up because that's just how humans are. If that were the case then we'd see these same kinds of stories elsewhere. We don't.
Yes, all of that does in fact support that hypothesis. These facts are consistent with what should be expected if true. Does it prove they're true? No. But it supports it.Human body is material hence its part should be material.
Let's forget that, mind is immaterial so is soul mind?
What is this spiritual?
Mind does not play any role, it is just like a television, does the change in screen affect the hard wire or is it the other way round? The brain is an organ that react to internal and external environment.
There is no behavior change in the last 10000 years or more. I told you irrigation is ONE factor NOT the SOLE factor.
You were the one who were saying that there are many types of humans!
If events in the genesis are taken literally it won’t make sense at all. What you do is rearrange and give multiple meanings to the same word like “man”. You didn’t make any prediction that FIT, you made an unhistorical story that fit your version of genesis.
Wow!! Are you deliberately not listening or do you not understand? “Dominance” ahs to be defined before we can tell one is dominant. If it is about speed cheetahs are dominant. Human beings could never control mosquitoes or virus,…
LOGIC and REASON, do I have to tell you what that means? Looks like I do!
Please find out what hypothesis and theory really is all about.
What is “free will”? The people of talheim and cemetery 117 were all fighting.
No, try again. Since you know universe is matter and space you should also know that space cannot expand.
We have enough information, actually a method – reason and logic. Seems you do not understand that. Similar mythical stories were meaningful to many people and affected their life, but that doesn’t make that stories real provided you know what “real” means.
Yes, I told you many times there was a flood in Ur in 3500BC. Flood in Ur doesn’t mean flood in lower Mesopotamia. And there is no evidence that the flood ended Ur in Ubaid. Ubaid culture was ended by drought in Oman.
You said all descendants of adam except noah is dead(It was Adam's children and Cain's children. Everyone except Noah and his sons. God decided to spare Noah as He saw favorable traits in him and started over with him. http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/128565? … ost2713572). The book asserts that everything except that was in the ark was dead by the WORLDWIDE FLOOD THAT COVERED MOUNTAINS and god says everything he created except that in the ark would be dead. So you mean that was also a creation of the authors, just like I argue?
One what value?
Do they have free will?
The Talheim people, the megalithic cemetery 117. Do chimpanzees got free will, that they have organized warfare? So false assertion.
Space – dimension is the property of an object so wrong.
Universe you are correct.
Exist, yours is not a definition but a synonym.
That is called hallucination, if not mythology. Why didn’t the god tell them that the world is not that small area? The original story is Atharhasis, so the GODS will be more correct, is it not? But the gods didn’t interact with the authors, for the authors it is hearsay.
But we have enough to know that most species are spread to a wider area than a flood can wipe out and immediately after the flood it all reemerges without anyone preserving them in a boat.
That is your premise.
Purposeful or not is for you to decide. Do you want me to consider ignorance as the reason?
Rewriting the story will not make it the story of genesis. Again man should mean man always; your modern knowledge says that read it man in one chapter and not man in another.
Let us agree that that is probable but that will not make the book true, it says it was ended by flood.
Second, it is not true either. The change from Ubaid pottery to Uruk pottery is a gradual one.
That dust suddenly will not become man.
Not at all. Cain married and had children, then men started to increase then god’s son saw. Got to ignore too much.
Ancestry is traced through father –patrilineal, through mother –matrilineal. Man dominant - patriarchal, women dominant –matriarchal,….rest are egalitarian. So where does your matrist stand?
Mac Mallowen studied it later. “The great Ur flood, thus, can be dated with a high degree of certainty to about 3500 BCE”. This is from the site you sent me – NCSE.
The book made not one but multiple mistakes. You are the one who is trying to iron out that. I can see it as it is.
Deuteronomy says otherwise.But you refrain from defining that mind, particularly as something that can exist. I don't view definitions (mind, love, fear, etc.) as things that actually exist. They are rather labels we have given a sequence of events happening the brain. And there goes the logic, because you refuse to start with a premise known to be true.
Cold or not, it still exists. It just doesn't work anymore, at least not as we see it now. But tat doesn't mean it is gone; it is still there and will remain there forever. Whereas you and I won't; 100% of the evidence we have is that we will be gone. Not there. Not anywhere.
Then we agree; if we change the thing that I presented as the mind, the mind changes. A good indication that it really IS the mind, yes?
And if they weren't real, we would expect to see exactly the same thing. Take out the gods, take out A&E, take out the garden, and we still expect to see the same development process; the same one that happened in various places all over the world. It is, in fact, the best explanation because that's how humans are, and we know the old myth doesn't add a single thing to what we see happened to other cultures.
So which supports the events? By your reasoning both do, but one requires something we can't show to exist and one does not. Which is the "best" then? I'd have to say the one without the requirement for another universe with a god.
This is from the dictionary ... "spiritual, rather than physical."
Immaterial means not material. It doesn't exist spatially, so there's nothing to point to.
So, a television that's meant to show someone something? It's just to display? Why would it need to show us what's going on? If the brain just reacts then it's just a mechanism, so there's no need to show us what's going on. It should just go about doing what it's doing. But it doesn't. It keeps us in the loop. Why? Because we have willful say so as to what happens.
Clearly there is. 10,000 years includes whatever differentiates indigenous humans from modern humans. Speaking of having to ignore blatantly obvious things.
No, just two. But what I'm talking about here are homo sapiens.
Yes I did. I made multiple predictions. Like that climate change and the mass dispersion. This hypothesis predicted where and when this exact event happened. It cannot be as you said if that's how I found these events.
Sure, we can keep arguing semantics, or you can just look around. Clearly, humans are the dominant species. To try to argue that is pointless.
Like you said, it requires definition. You seem to be determining what is and isn't possible just based on what you "feel" is possible. Your answering questions prematurely. What's the point of testing and investigation if you're just going to make it up as you go?
Typical.
Sorry, but I'm going to take the word of experts over you ...
"it is an error, as profound as it is universal, to think that men in the food-gathering stage were given to fighting... All available facts go to show that the food-gathering stage of history must have been one of perfect peace." - WJ Perry, Archaeologist
"For the first ninety-five thousand years after the Homo sapiens Stone Age began, there is no evidence that man engaged in war on any level, let alone on a level requiring organized group violence. There is little evidence of any killing at all." - Richard Gabriel, Anthropologist
"There is the same lack of evidence for violent conflict throughout the simple horticultural period of history as in the hunter-gather era. Graves don't contain weapons; images of warfare or weapons are still absent from artwork; and villages and towns aren't situated in inaccessible places or surrounded by defensive walls." - Steve Taylor, The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of a New Era
It doesn't expand, but it can increase.
Similar mythical stories? sorry, but the only 'similar stories' are from that same region. Logic and reason should tell you that if you're right we should see other examples elsewhere. We don't.
Yet silt deposit separates Ubaid strata from Uruk strata.
Preflood - Genesis 6:4 - The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
Postflood - Numbers 13:33 - We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”
I didn't make that up and I didn't change it. That's what it says. Clearly, this is talking about someone who survived the flood who wasn't on the ark. The same word translated as 'mountain' elsewhere is translated as 'hill'.
No, they don't have free will, but they do have genetic information that took millions of years to come together. That's what gives them value. The investment of time. Can't be easily duplicated.
I have numerous quotes from experts who disagree.
Take it up with the authors of the dictionary. That's where I got those definitions.
Like I said, all of history is hearsay. Should we ignore it all as vivid imagination? Should we not listen to anyone who came before?
Well then I guess the authors were just really good fiction writers to tell a story of a God who actually cares about the animals.
Whether you find it silly or nonsense or whatever, I actually believe this stuff.
I never said 'not man'.
The book doesn't say that.
It doesn't say the dust suddenly became man. It says God made man from the dust.
I'm not ignoring anything. Men started increasing because Cain built a city.
Matrists are egalitarian.
Okay, so you assume this book that many have held in high regard in every age since its inception made mistakes that are easy for you to recognize as such.
Where? I still haven't found it.Don't overcomplicate it and talk yourself out of acknowledging the existence of the mind. The mind is a part of your reality. You actually experience it. You experience thoughts and memories and mental images and all of that. That's really happening. So, it exists. It's a real part of your reality that's really happening. But if you were tasked with proving it, you wouldn't be able to. Nobody can see it but you.
Ah, I see what you're saying. Well, yeah, I guess it would still exist. It's just that nothing would be alive to observe it. All the activity that makes it what we know today as the universe would cease to happen. But yeah, unless it collapses back in on itself, the space would still be there.
No, physical brain activity is not one and the same as the mind. It's most likely the cause of the mind, but is not the mind itself. You can observe brain activity, you can guess as to what brain activity equates to what in the mind, but you cannot observe the mind itself.
No, that isn't true. Something happened in Sumer that didn't happen elsewhere. Something happened in this region of the world that caused the people to write these stories like they did that didn't happen elsewhere. Sumer really is unique. Something caused that. Their explanation matches what we should expect if my hypothesis is true. Exactly. Something has to account for the emergence of modern civilization because it happened in this one place in the world, then spread from there. It didn't happen independently.And with that we're back to square one. You're claiming something exists that you can't prove. I gave you a definition that CAN be proved, or at a minimum has good evidential support, but you reject it and go back to something immaterial without evidence. Using the same word ("mind") for both is a sophistry that doesn't pass muster
See above. You just talked yourself out of the logical reason to claim there is a mind by defining it as something that cannot be shown.
Nope - we're gong to disagree here forever. You will forever claim that something stupendous happened there that happened no where else, while I will continually say it DID happen all over the world. Whereupon you will theorize that maybe Sumerians took to the other culture and I will say there is no evidence of that. And then you will repeat that only Sumer did the stuff that others also did and it starts all over.
But either way, it is still not a reason to fabricate a god. Nothing whatsoever says it didn't happen quite naturally; maybe a "man with a vision" was the root without any godhood at all. Goodness knows THAT has happened everywhere!
It is immaterial. Things you picture in your mind don't spatially exist, do they? Yet you see them. They are real. This is a perfect example of how a perfectly intelligent individual can misuse "logic" and "reason" to talk yourself right out of what would be obvious to a child. This is how atheism arises. Atheism only exists in those ages where logic and reason are prevalent. Basically, you have to convince yourself there is no God.
But it is observed. Your mind is observed by you and mine by me. So it exists. There is an observer.
There IS evidence that people from Saharasia, not Sumerians in particular, but people carrying the traits of the behavior change, went to each part of the world where modern humans arose. You can keep disagreeing if you like, but you'll continue to be wrong and continue to hold a false worldview. If you want to know and understand the real truth, you'll acknowledge this. It's your right to continue to believe what you wish. But come at me saying I'm wrong and I will continue to correct you.
Sure, you can continue to deny God. This doesn't prove God, as I've said. And as I've said, that's not what this is about. It's about Genesis. The events of Genesis really happening and having a very real impact on our history. These events helped make us what we are today. They're a real part of the story.For sure. The dragon I picture as I carve the clay actually exists. And the creatures of my dreams. And your god - all absolutely real...to you at least. We seem to have different ideas on what "real" means as well as "mind".
Sorry, no. I've never observed a human mind and doubt that you have either. At best you observed events that you attribute to a mind, but without evidence that mind exists (per your definition, not mine) such attribution should never have been made.
So you claim, but you cannot back it up with anything but conjecture; conjecture that no one else agrees with.
The Genesis part may be the funniest part of this whole thing; we agree that Genesis is a rough (and exaggerated) historical account. We only substantially disagree when Genesis tells the tale of gods and other supernatural things or events, while you say it's not about gods anyway. So what's the argument about? Genesis minus the gods, or the gods that you say it's NOT about?
Come on, wilderness. You keep getting things confused by overthinking it. Do you also deny a projected image in a movie theater exists? When you picture a dragon, are you not actually experiencing seeing that image? Is there not a real image in your mind? If ideas don't actually exist, then how do they have such an impact on the world? What if you were trying to carve a dragon without having ever seen a dragon before. Then an image of a dragon would not exist in your head so you would not have an image to draw on. But you do. It has to exist for you to use it to do your sculpture.
Yes you have. You've observed your own mind. The one that came up with that dragon analogy above, that came from your mind. You experience it.
It's about actually knowing history. Our real history. It's about understanding what made us who we are. And yes I can back it up. I backed that particular bit up by referring you to a couple of books that speak of exactly that in particular.That dragon I imagined is no more real than the Martians from HG Wells. While a picture is a real thing, what it represents is not, and all the spin in the world will not make it so.
I presume you have observed it as well. Can you describe it - color, shape, size, texture, etc.? No, because you observed the events you attribute to the mind, not the mind itself.
But you're not particularly interested in the history. You're interested in the inferences and conclusions you draw from that history, and THOSE you cannot support. Like the gods.
Of course the actual dragon isn't real. But the image is. The image you're able to use, the details you're able to draw on and compare to your sculpture, that is real. You really see it, in your mind. It exists, in your mind.
The mind isn't something with dimensions or texture. But it exists. The databank of words you're drawing on to convey ideas in writing is real. It exists. The associations you make between these words and what these words mean, they exist. Your bank account password exists. If your brain were destroyed, there'd be no way to access that information, but it's there.
Oh yes I am. The history is my prime interest. If beings who lived for centuries at one time existed, if they're the inspiration behind the mythological stories, if they actually did have an impact on the dawning of the first civilization, then it's important to know that. Everything that played a role in our history, in realizing us as we are today, knowing the truth is important. I don't care about proving God exists or 'winning souls' by convincing others. What I care about is determining our real history.
Your assumptions about me and what you imagine my motivations to be, they only exist in your mind as well, yet they're proving to be a very real roadblock in this conversation.That's what I said - the image (picture) is real. What it represents isn't. There is a difference, you know.
If the mind is real, then show it. Don't just say it exists and stop there - show it! Because you're right - if the brain is destroyed (becomes not real) then all the others are gone as well. A good indication that they all reside in the brain, not the mind.
If, if, if. So get rid of the "if's" - show that longevity. Don't just assume that they did because ancient people said so - show them!
Yes, they're a roadblock because you keep drawing inferences and making conclusions that the data doesn't support. I keep saying that, whereupon you repeat the statement with nothing to back it but the myths. It isn't enough.That's the whole point. The mind is something we actually do experience, it's real, but it can't be shown to be real. The only reason you and I know it actually occurs is because we each experience the mind. It's an abstract construct that really does exist, that really does happen, that can't be proven to exist. But we each know it does because we each experience it.
It doesn't exist hence there is NOTHING, soul is a concept, a mere thought. Soul is nothing. What is spiritual?
It is not showing us, it is reacting. We have no willful say, it is the illusion created by one part of brain. Studies now prove that brain starts firing even before we have conscious awareness. What “conscious” does is find rationalization for the act.
There is nothing that differentiates except technology. Rest is wishful thinking, that we are somehow superior to ancient “barbarians”.
There is a sudden emergence of "equality" and sudden increase in inventions in Europe from the end of 17th centary, does that behavior change indicate a change in species?
There is only one species of humans for the last 10000 years, homo sapiens. The last other species florensis died by 10000 BC, Adam is florensis?
There is neither a climate change nor mass dispersion. that is confined to your time. Ther was a gradual rise of temperature from 6200 BC to 3500 BC. The last dispersion was 10000 years before. Rest are small scale, like Semitics coming to Mesopotamia.
Wild assertion won’t make it true.
Can you get in front of a lion and tell it that you are dominant?
Immediately after the boy was killed.
Have you any idea at which stage testing comes in science?
A little education won’t hurt you.
Steve Tylor the charlatan who ignored the studies after 1960 is your expert? Ignoring cemetery 117 or Talheim is not going to help you. Ignoring the wars in indigenous societies will not help you. Why there is war even amo9ng chimpanzees, all you can do is ignore all the data and hear only bible thumpers.
Wars were less before because the population density was less, societies were separated by large areas.
??? Increase what?
Space cannot increase(?) only a thing can increase.
Similar mythical means MYTHOLOGICAL stories, that which contain magic. Say there are flood stories in almost major parts of the world and that creates meaning for those people who follow that, why are you not saying that those stories are correct too? Dharma woke up on a leaf and created the world, real right?
Slit at various times, intra and inter that do not divide. Again it is the preponderance of the material not exclusivity.
"Simple clay tokens may have been used for the symbolic representation of commodities, and pendants and stamp seals may have had a similar symbolism, if not function. During this period, the repertory of seal designs expands to include snakes, birds, and animals with humans. There is much continuity between the Ubaid culture and the succeeding Uruk period, when many of the earlier traditions were elaborated, particularly in architecture." Department of Ancient Near Eastern Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art
You mean you change your words every now and then? This is YOUR words.. “It was Adam's children and Cain's children. Everyone except Noah and his sons. God decided to spare Noah as He saw favorable traits in him and started over with him. http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/128565? … ost2713572” You first said all except Noah was killed, now you say some others also escaped ,didn't the flood reached ther height?
Yes the book contradicts itself multiple times. Seems you do not even understand what a “contradiction” is.
You say NEPHILIM IS ADAM’S DESCENDANTS. THEN EVEN JEWS ARE NEPHILIM SO IS ALL OTHER PEOPLE IN MIDDLE EAST, then when you say jews met nephilim it means nephilim met nephilim, they will all lool alike. Do you understand what you are saying?
Then not even a single animal should be killed. Don’t say ridiculous things. The Raven in Eridu is no different from that in Uruk, same species which continuously interbreed.
Get educated is the only thing I can say or you can tell that “experts” about the massacre sites, they probably have never heard of Talheim or the evidence of Chimpanzee wars which were even filmed.
Do you understand the difference between “meaning” and “definition”? A dictionary gives meaning. Well looks like you do not even understand what a “synonym” means. Please, if you want to make an argument at least try to understand what you are saying.
There is no MAGIC in history, don’t you even know that? There is archeology.
They are indeed.
God cared about the animals, cared enough to drown them!!
Someone who studies and uses his vast knowledge just to MAKE ancient myths history by ignoring most of what he know, it is sad.
If god created man in first, second and 5th chapter, then it is MAN god created and the same one. You say they are all different.
The book say everything was destroyed by the flood, everything except the ark and its contents.
God is myth, you remove it. What remains is dust became man.
And only after that Nephilim appeared, you say After Cain it’s all nephilm. Bible say Man increased and they married to produce nephilim.
That means the words has no meaning.
For anyone who is not blinded by faith. There are similar other books like the book of death, gita, qoran……………. even earth is the centre and it is flat was also held in very high regard, they might all be true!
When the Most High (ʿElyōn) divided nations,
he separated the sons of man (Ādām);
he set the bounds of the masses
according to the number of the sons of God (huiōn theou)
For God's (yhwh) portion is his people;
Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
De 32.8Spiritual is immaterial. It doesn't exist spatially, it's not a physical element, but it does exist. Think about it like this. Do you agree that you and I have willful control over choosing our actions and decisions? Assuming you do, how is that possible? We're made of matter, and matter behaves in particular ways. Our being able to willfully choose what we do is like a river willfully choosing its path.
So, there must be a component to the self that can behave free of natural law. You can't demonstrate it. You can't observe it. You can only know it's there through logical determination. But, like the mind, there are things that exist in this reality that are not physical material.
That's ridiculous. So what you're saying is that the entirety of human history, everything humans have ever done, good or bad, was just brains reacting to their environment? That no one is actually responsible for their decisions? So, this conversation we're engaged in now, neither of us have willfully chosen to be here. We're doomed to engage in this mindless back and forth by brains we are slaves to, unwilling passive participants who have no choice but to participate.
Well then that means that believers have no willful choice either. What I believe, what you believe, everything about it is just causation. Just brains reacting.
Of course the brain fires before we're consciously aware. That conscious awareness is also created by brain activity. It has to do something for that to happen.
Nothing except technology? Which humans created. So that statement is completely ridiculous. What happened in the 17th century is due to changes in the environment. The same can't be said about the ancient world. There's no changes to account for it.
Your speaking as if we have found every species that has ever existed. To find specimens from Adam/Eve's line would literally be like finding a needle in a haystack. This is one of the most highly populated regions of the world, with the longest sustained human history, and we're talking about finding a handful of individuals amongst that.
Wrong. It's commonly referred to as the 5.9 kiloyear event.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event
It is recognized by the experts as being the catalyst that led to the emergence of advanced civilizations.
You're missing the obvious thing here. Notice that tiger is in a cage. Captured by humans and kept there. On display for our amusement and education. Even though, yes, in a straight up hand to hand kind of scenario, we'd be screwed. So who's really the dominant species in this scenario?
Yes, after a hypothesis is formed and predictions are made, you then test to see if those predictions are true. Which is exactly what I did.
Listening to someone who holds different views than you do without dismissing them as less educated than you can't hurt either.
Uh, Steve Taylor is not a Christian, or a bible thumper. There will always be anomolies and exceptions to the rule. It's the natural world. But the overall evidence is staggering. a handful of exceptions don't render the rest of it irrelevant.
If you move your walls out, the space within increases.
I think the reason for the commonality in flood tales is because the people who actually experienced that flood, who were all in that same place when the flood happened, then went all throughout the world carrying their stories with them.
The stories aren't totally true, they're just inspired by real thing.
Yes, I know.
No, no, no, no... ugh. Genesis 6 says these 'sons of God' began intermingling with 'daughters of humans'. It then says that humans are mortal, and only live 120 years. The subsequent chapters then show the lifespans decreasing with each generation. So, those who didn't breed outside of their own lines, like the Nephilim, were still recognized as such. Those who mixed with humans, became more and more human. It's really not complicated.
If they were all the same then evolution would have never happened. It's the differences that each specimen brings to the gene pool that allowed for changes over time.
You're so busy arguing that you're forgetting the fundamentals of your own viewpoint.
Of course, if we disagree then it must be that I need further education. Nevermind all the evidence that you're ignoring in favor of these couple of examples.
Just because you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't mean I don't understand.
Of course. Because we haven't observed any magic in the handful of decades that we've existed, it's obviously NEVER happened. If everyone thought as you do we'd never learn anything new.
Cared enough about us to go through a whole lot of trouble to give us our own minds and wills.
It is sad that you'll ignore so much just to continue to assume that you know better.
No,the bible says they are different....
Genesis 6:2 - the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
That statement is clearly talking about two different groups.
The books says descendants of the Nephilim, who it says existed before the flood, were still around during Moses' time. So, no it doesn't.
That's like saying gravity is myth, remove it and all that remains is matter forming into planets and stars.
Yeah, humans increased in number because Cain built a city. And through that there was more and more interaction. This resulted in Nephilim. So, there were 'sons of God', humans, and Nephilim.
No, it doesn't. Matrist means they did not segregate by sex like Patrist cultures did. They did not mutilate their genitalia like Patrist cultures did. Sexual taboos didn't exist like they did in Patrist cultures. Matrist refers to cultures having specific characteristics that differentiate them from the others.
Well this books are the basis for the three largest religions in the world. These first five books of the bible are common for Christians, Jews, and Muslims. These books have had an obvious impact on human history in every age since it was first written. Nothing else has had this level of impact. So you might not be so quick to dismiss it as nonsense with obvious mistakes. Maybe you should consider the possibility that you could be wrong and open your mind to other possibilities. That's how we learn new things and move forward.
So what was your point again? This speaks of the God, then speak of two groups, 'sons of man', and 'sons of God'. Which is consistent with what I've been saying all along.Thanks for making me laugh; you succeeded if that was your intention. The first sentence, soul doesn’t exist but it exists is one of the most ridiculous statements I have heard. As you cannot see these obvious contradiction you might now know that why you are not able to see the contradiction in bible. The latter part didn’t come in your definition of soul. No “you” do not have any willful control, your brain acts and then find a reason for the act.
Natural law?
EXIST, do not use the word as if I do not know what it means or do you think I won’t mind you using the equivocation fallacy?
You are talking as if you have some independent existence beyond your brain!
We are the slaves of our environment.
It do not have to do.
The same can be said about the ancient world. In fact you are continuously saying it that the 5.9 kiloyear caused acidification. Population moved in to the river side. The only difference we have is in the time scale.
Are you talking about homo sapiens or not. You are continuously changing it between one and two. Heard of genetics?
It was a catalyst that lead to increased population density around watered areas which lead to a gradual evolution of civilization. It took at least 1000 years.
“Examination of ∼50 globally distributed paleoclimate records reveals as many as six periods of significant rapid climate change during the time periods 9000–8000, 6000–5000, 4200–3800, 3500–2500, 1200–1000, and 600–150 cal yr B.P.” Quaternary Research: Volume 62, Issue 3,
november 2004
That is why I said you have to define what dominance means. It is our “dominant” technology that allowed us to capture it. In other ways we are inferior.
A leopard is superior to us in strength but run away from a baboon, a mere monkey.
Dominance is a relative term.
?? That is not the scientific method, are you talking about technology?
I am listening, but I do not take seriously someone who continuously contradict himself and act as if words have no meaning.
There will be anomalies, but taking anomalies only and ignoring major researches is not what a scientist do. There is no staggering evidence. The few massacre sites of ancients, the behavior of indigenous societies and the behavior of chimpanzees all prove violence. A few decades before researches thought that indigenous societies are all non violent, and that was the research he has based his research on, but that is discredited long back.
If you move your walls out the distance between the walls increases, the size of room increases not space. Space has no boundaries, so which wall is moving out? What is that wall made of? What is outside that wall?
The reason most people have such stories are because most cultures started around rivers like Nile, Euphrates, Indus, Ganges….. rivers that flood. Nobody had taken the stories to America they too have such stories. Similarly we have other stories too. They are all inspired by real things, a bigger flood or routine flood inspired the story but that doesn’t means it happened as described in the story.
So silt has no relevance.
There lifespan was a thousand years. Then how did they live longer for jews to meet them?
So the nephilim were true hybrids, then they are sterile?
It says men began to multiply…. Why the men started to multiply only after Adam? Bible says mankind is adam’s descendants, then why men do not mean them? Where there two mankind?
It says man will not live forever not god’s son, that means man is Adam’s descendants. There is no other man.
You forgot that evolution doers not happen in a few animals in an open region. It is when the animals were prevented from interbreeding evolution happens. So you do not know about evolution either?
May be it is because you yourself have not decided which all cities to be included in the flood!!
Never mind the evidence you are ignoring you mean?
You do not understand is evident from what you wrote, I asked for a definition and you gave a synonym, if you had known, you would have given a definition.
You do not what free will is but know god gave it? Now you do not know what “care” means either! I came here to discuss not to teach you. I was asking why god killed the ANIMALS.
If you have nothing more to add but only such ridiculous meaningless statements, I think we better stop.
I do not ignore, it is what you do. Because steve tylor and a fool wrote a book and that substantiate your irrational beliefs, you think that is what experts wrote.
Yes, sons of god and human beings – mankind – descendants of Adam and Eve. Nowhere in Genesis Adam or his descendants are called sons of god. In fact in OT only Israel and its people is called sons of god.
Even the oldest Methuselah lived only 969 years and the time of the mythical moses is 1300, so you mean some Nephilm lived more than 2000 years?
The book says god killed every thing at the time of blood except those in the ark. Can you tell me where in genesis it says that people who were outside the ark survived?
Do not tell me you do not what gravity is either!
Only after THE MEN began to increase NEPHILIM appeared, not immediately after marriage of CAIN. But you say marriage of Cain produced Nephilim.
Hunter gatherers were egalitarian, there nothing you says matter because it cannot be classified as either. Settled cultures are as I already said. It is in “Patriarchal” ones such things occur, usually.
The second largest population is in India and majority is Hindus, so shall we concede that their stories are true too?
Fact is a fact irrespective of whether the majority is behind it. The world ones believed that the earth is flat, what came of it?
It is not based on democracy but based on facts, logic and reason we decide and all these are clearly against bible. If you have rigorously defined your words and used logic and reason you would have known.
But any way that for telling me why you find it imperative to ignore logic and reason and science and side with a ridiculous book even though you repeatedly state you have no vested interest.
It says Yahweh is son of El. You were asking for the reference.
So, you're a determinist then. This is why it kills me to hear atheists refer to themselves as humanists, when in actuality everything about their viewpoint robs humanity of any sort of relevance or significance. There's a difference between saying something doesn't "exist spatially" and "does not exist". Your thoughts do not exist spatially, but they do exist.
Which do you mean, 'natural law' or 'exist'? What is your grievance? I'm not misusing the words. Natural law refers to the physical laws of this universe. The matter in our brains should only be able to work as they dictate, which does not allow for willful control. Which it seems is what you believe. That free will is only an illusion. I think human history shows differently. We would be indecipherable with the animal world if that were true. It's our wills and wants that take us so far off course.
That's just sad to read you think that. But that's really all the atheism leaves you with. That we're nothing more than biological machines, passive participants just along for the ride while being conscious of it.
Yeah, it does. If you experience any kind of mental sensation, then there has to be equivalent physical activity in the brain. Scanning the brain and noting where and when each part 'lights up' isn't going to clear up whether or not we have free will.
Except that the changes and the inventions started before that climate change. First the behavior change, then the inventions, then the climate change, the the behavior changes and inventions showed up elsewhere.
I'm sorry you're having trouble following, but maybe you can allow for the possibility from time to time that you're not understanding, and that it is not I who misunderstands words or am incapable of coherent thought.
Homo sapiens are the Gen1 humans. Adam and Eve were created separate from the naturally evolved line, so I don't know what you'd call them, but there not homo sapiens.
Yet we only see this explosion of ideas and inventions once.
You keep speaking of technology as if it's somehow separate. It's made by us. It's part of what we bring to the table. If it makes us dominant then we are dominant. Tigers aren't keeping us in cages, it's the other way around. Despite the physical advantages they have. Don't overcomplicate it.
From ...... http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html
Steps of the Scientific Method
Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion
Again, that is only your own not understanding making it seem to you that I am contradicting myself or that I don't respect words.
A few sparse anomalies does not change the overall obvious trend. Sure, violence has been observed in primates, and in dolphins, but these are most definitely exceptions to the rule.
"it is an error, as profound as it is universal, to think that men in the food-gathering stage were given to fighting... All available facts go to show that the food-gathering stage of history must have been one of perfect peace." - WJ Perry, Archaeologist
"For the first ninety-five thousand years after the Homo sapiens Stone Age began, there is no evidence that man engaged in war on any level, let alone on a level requiring organized group violence. There is little evidence of any killing at all." - Richard Gabriel, Anthropologist
"There is the same lack of evidence for violent conflict throughout the simple horticultural period of history as in the hunter-gather era. Graves don't contain weapons; images of warfare or weapons are still absent from artwork; and villages and towns aren't situated in inaccessible places or surrounded by defensive walls." - Steve Taylor, The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of a New Era
Space has to have increased because it came into existence with the big bang along with time.
Hmm.... so why do you think most flood myths around the world also claim giants existed before the floods? That part doesn't quite mesh with the commonality of rivers theory.
A silt deposit where the thickness of the layer is measured in feet means flood.
The books of Numbers says the Jewish spies saw the descendants of the Nephilim.
There you go again. So when animals can't breed, that's when evolution happens? Are you saying they're then forced to cross-breed with other species. But I thought that wasn't possible. Mutations are mutations. They happen within groups and get passed around with intermingling groups.
Your counting the couple of examples you're bringing up as concrete evidence against, when the general norm that makes those examples anomalies is plain.
Whatever. As far as I can tell this is what you go to when you have nothing else.
I think we're about done too. What do you think 'care' means?
This would be a great place for you to bring statements from other experts that illustrate what you're saying about Steve Taylor and James DeMeo are true. I've studied much after finding those books, from all different sources, and I find only further cohesion with their claims. Saharasia is itself a catalog of evidence.
Yes, it's the line of descendants that eventually led to Jesus. Like Luke 3 says. Jesus was considered a son of God in the same way that all from Joseph to David to Noah to Adam were 'sons of God'. The Israelites were part of that same line. Most of who Luke 3 mentions comes from that line. See, I think that's what God's interactions with the Jews were accomplishing. He was controlling their breeding to create Jesus in a world with free will that was not under His control. Those are the sons of God. And humans are spoken of as a different group.
I already told you. Genesis 6 (preflood) and Numbers 13 (postflood). Interesting note, Methuselah died the same year as the flood.
No, but as usual that's where your assumptions go. I'm talking about something else unseen that accounts for the behavior of the universe. Remove it and you just have things forming for some unknown reason.
I think you're reading too much into it. It's simply saying that these beings, who the intended reader was clearly familiar with, were around "in those days", before the flood. And it's explaining that this intermingling is responsible for that and for the wickedness that warranted the flood.
Right, but patriarchal societies didn't come about until after the behavior change.
Yet unlike the belief that the world is flat, the bible remains. Facts, logic, and reason, which I use as well, are clearly NOT against the bible.
I have a vested interest in truth and history. The real story. But unlike you I don't take possibilities off the table prematurely. I don't assume I already know better about what can and can't be the truth. I simply let the information guide me.
That's a rather specific way of reading that. Here too it's speaking of two different groups. 'Sons of man' and 'sons of God'. 'God's portion' is the 'sons of God'. And notice what it says later ...
Deuteronomy 32:17 - They sacrificed to false gods, which are not God—
gods they had not known,
gods that recently appeared,
gods your ancestors did not fear.
I have no intention of educating you, when I came here I thought you have some new information but all you got is two books written one by a ignorant and another by a charlatan.
You are using equivocation fallacies. And you seem not able to understand the difference between an object and concept. I was under the impression that you know what evolution is, at the least the difference between interbreed and breed.
Exist in laymen terms has many meanings and you are using all these in your presentation without understanding what it means. In laymen terms, "exist" can denote both an object and concept and hence a man who do not use his term properly, is using the equivocation fallacy.So either you are deliberately ignoring to mislead or you are ignoring because you are ignorant of the fallacy.
Reason, mankind, conjunction, proposition, soul, spirit are examples of concepts. Space came “into” “existence” with Big Bang, indeed. A boundless expanse increases!!!
A more than thousand year ardification caused people to move to river side in mesopotamia. The settlement’s population began to rise and that brought behavior changes over a thousand years, that is, the change in behavior that is good for a hunter gatherer to behavior that is good for a city life, but otherwise the basic behavior of humans haven’t changed. It is not the climate change but the increased population that brought the changes. Along with high population density (and the need for irrigation) came hierarchy, politics…..
We only see this explosion in Mesopotamia only once.
This is where an anomaly actually tests the rule. One anomaly is enough to disprove but we have multiple. We have no evidence is wrong, what evidence we have points towards violence.
Patriarchal, matriarchal, lineal all came up after Settlement. You are tying the cart in front of the horse.
Humans claims so many things including a golden age where people lived for thousands of years with no child mortality, that is all true.
Every year or so. There is no difference between Ubaid and Uruk or inter Ubaid and inter Uruk. It is not based on silt the cultures are divided.
It means drowning animals!!
I haven’t seen you using Logic and reason, but only fallacies and contradictions. As you yourself use logic, I am hardly surprised that you cannot find logical fallacies in bible.
You have no vested in truth and history, your vested interest is in proving bible true as it has “obvious impact on human history in every age since it was first written”. You want it to be true is obvious from your words.
In genesis god created man in all chapters, but you want it to be man in one and Adam in another. You say all except Noah killed in the flood at the same time allowing some others to survive. When you are shown obvious contradictions you point to some books written by another religion, or gloss over it. In fact you say both adam and man are different only to iron out another contradiction. You say Adam’s sons were called sons of god though nowhere in genesis they were called as such.
Still it will not change the fact that the sentence in plain English means “When El divided among his sons, the sons of Adam Yahweh got as his portion/inheritance, Israel.
Philosophical Naturalism, which guides methodical naturalism in it's interpretation of scientific discovery does not (IMO) distinguish itself from any other religion in a particularly noteworthy manner.
We can know from established science that the known universe did not have a naturalistic cause. Time, space, and matter (the natural realm) did not exist prior to the "Big Bang" and thus could not have been their own cause. The universe began, thus requires a cause according to The Principle of Causality. That cause being immaterial and timeless can only be described as supernatural according to definitions acceptable to naturalistic science. There's no rational, logical, or scientific escape from the brute facts.
The dilemma for methodological naturalism is that it cannot accept the only rational interpretation of discovery made under it's own auspices for purely philosophical (religious) reasons.
Another fact that must be glossed over, ignored, or categorically denied is the fact that DNA contains information in the form of a code. Codes do not occur in nature. It's an article of religious faith to say otherwise.
I could go on to include the origin of life itself as an example of the failure of naturalism to accept it's own discovery because of an overriding faith that naturalism must be true regardless of evidence to the contrary.
The application of religion as it's generally accepted, in that there is a conflict with science seems to extend to natualism by way of example."Time, space, and matter (the natural realm) did not exist prior to the "Big Bang" and thus could not have been their own cause. The universe began, thus requires a cause according to The Principle of Causality. "
And there, right in your own words, is that "noteworthy" difference between science and belief. One requires evidence to support their statements, one requires only that the statements fit within a pre-defined set of beliefs (not facts or truth - beliefs).
Sorry - I already said that the chemicals in DNA, along with how they are arranged, is what counts. Not a man-defined "code", any more than a NaCl (salt) ion contains a "code" on how to make the lattice in a salt crystal. That you choose to call it a code, with some kind of supernatural inference, does not make it so.
Unless you can produce that supernatural thing that dictates how molecules form?I site concrete examples of why naturaliistic ideologues will not and cannot accept discovery made under the auspices of methodological naturalism when that discovery contradicts it's own fundamental assumptions. I didn't see any practical refutation of my thesis in your reply.
Maybe you could begin by explaining how the universe could have a naturalistic cause according to established science and accepted naturalistic definitions.
i can save you some time. All naturalism has is speculation and conjecture that has nothing to do with established science and correctly applied logic."I didn't see any practical refutation of my thesis in your reply."
But I did. I made a claim, just as you did, that your thesis was wrong. It's up to you to back up the thesis that the big bang required a god to happen, that it could not be natural, and you failed to do that. As you decline to support the thesis must mean that opinion rules and mine is just as good as yours.
"Maybe you could begin by explaining how the universe could have a naturalistic cause according to established science and accepted naturalistic definitions."
I refer you to Stephen Hawking, who is on record as stating that it could have happened naturally without a god. No physicist has ever challenged that statement, and I take that to mean that they cannot do so; certainly there are believers in the group, but cannot provide evidence to refute the statement (or support your claim). Should you wish to understand the reasoning yourself (I do not) you will need to spend a few years studying physics and cosmology. That you have not done so, remaining ignorant of the reasoning just as I have, is insufficient reason to simply claim differently.
But I DO see a possible problem with our conversation; I have assumed that your term "naturalism" has been based on science and logic and perhaps I don't understand what you are trying to say. Can you define the term as you are using it for better communication? Are you using it similarly to Pagan religions that are "naturalistic", believing without evidence just as theistic religions do?
Here it is again. If established science and correctly applied logic are the standard then there is no escape in unproven escapist conjecture a la Stephen Hawking etc. per your appeal to authority fallacy.
The universe began. Time, space, and matter, which are co-relative (GTR) began to exist and thus according to The Principle of Causality (which is one of the First Principles of Logic) ... requires a cause.
Time, space, and matter (the extent of the natural realm according the definition of "Naturalism") did not exist and thus could not have caused themselves to begin to exist.
The necessary First Cause by definition could not conform to Naturalism's own definitions thus by definition the supernatural is proved under the auspices of methodological naturalism. A belief in God is supported by correctly applied logic.
We'll save DNA code for later but more naturalistic escapist blather is merely time consuming and not a real problem for established science.OK. But there is a small problem here. the "Principle of Causality" is a philosophical argument, neither logical nor physical. It is an observed phenomenon of the macro universe, not sub-atomic and certainly did not apply to conditions in the singularity which preceded the big bang. Attempting to apply it to circumstances where it was not applicable can only be termed fallacious.
Therefore, the principle (which seems to be your only reason for claiming the big bang was caused by an outside influence) does nothing to add to the argument and thus the belief in a god (any god, whether Christian or other) is not supported logically from this so-called principle.I think you're confusing The Principle of Causality with The Principle of Sufficient Reason. The Principle of Causality is one of The First Principles of Logic ... not a philosophical argument. Empiricism and thus methodological naturalism / science itself is founded on The First Principles of Logic. There is no escape ... the universe demands a First Cause. Arguing against causality demonstrates the futility of the atheistic position. It was game over when cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang was discovered. The rest of the intellectually dishonest story on the part of atheistic scientists guided by philosophical naturalism involves desperate unscientific speculation.
I've gone on "The Atheist Experience" on YouTube and their attempts at evasion follow a predictable pattern. I win and get called names. But I'm really only trying to get them to understand that naturalism's assumptions are fundamentally flawed and unsupported by actual science.Sorry, but the bogus "principle" is nothing but a philosophical concept, picked up by apologetics in an attempt to make themselves sound like something they are not. Science is not founded on it and the universe most definitely does not demand a cause for the big bang.
If you want to pretend to be a scientist, you should stay away from the faux "scientists" of the apologetics or such places as the "creation Museum" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6k3gye3B8g ) as while they may be comical they are also a complete was of time as far as gaining knowledge goes.
Study up on some modern physics and chemistry instead. Or biology. Even Anthropology.
I note that you did not provide a possible "naturalistic" cause for the beginning of the universe that conforms to established scientific discovery.
Naturalism also fails to account for the origin of life. Given these failures, the assumption that naturalistic principles must apply to the coded information in DNA and the hypothesis of evolution is unwarranted.
I'm working from an IPhone and can't copy and paste or keep multiple pages open for quick references. But you can easily verify the definitions and data I use.As there was no need for a cause of that beginning, there is no need to provide a possible explanation to disprove the necessity of a god. Should you wish to claim otherwise, you must refute the statements of those that have studied the subject exhaustively, and do it with more than a simple statement that the philosophical theory of causality is correct. We are not, after all, discussing philosophy but cosmology and physics where proof is required rather than simple opinions.
Of course naturalism accounts for a method of forming the first life; it is called "chemistry" in the popular vernacular. No need for a god at all as chemicals are known to form molecules (very complex molecules in some cases) without any such entity. That you claim the natural process can form some chemicals but not others (DNA) puts the onus of proof on you. Similarly, as living organisms are known to mutate and change, it again puts the onus on you to show that there is a limit to the change - that species cannot evolve past a certain point.
Both of these (creation of complex chemicals and organism changes from generation to generation) are commonly observed from well understood processes all around us. That you will put a limit on them, past which nature cannot operate, seems a little foolhardy unless you can provide evidence of such a limit and how/why the limit works. What the limiting factors are, and why. Can you do so?I can see that you're unfamiliar with the origin of life dilemma from the perspective of naturalism. Life originating through naturalistic principles is so improbable as to have been the reason for the desperate hypothesis of "panspermia". Even the simplest life is so immensely complex that it could not have arisen naturalistically.
Realistically it's not even worth debating because as conclusively shown previously, naturalism is a non-starter. Why look to naturalism for origins of life when the universe itself has been scientifically and logically demonstrated to be the effect of a supernatural First Cause?
I've fulfilled my obligation to support my position with established science and fundamental logic. Again.Can you point me to the rigid mathematical analysis of the probability of life arising without the supernatural? One that shows a zero probability that it could happen?
I didn't think so. Why then would you ever make such a statement? And no, you haven't fulfilled anything. You have just made statements you cannot back up, that's all. Again.Of course, everything I've said can be backed up. When I can get to a computer I will be able to copy and paste but you still won't be able to accept the facts. As in my original thesis atheism / naturalism is an absolutist belief system. No evidence that contravenes naturalism is acceptable.
The important thing is that you know the truth even though you must reject it. At some point that will not be an option for you.Just something for you to consider, not the "rigid" mathematical analysis you ask for but interesting in the sense that I believe that your reading habits have made you totally unfamiliar with it.
The simplest living thing (a single celled organism) is described by Oxford University scientist Franklin M. Harold in The Way of the Cell:
“…a high-tech factory, complete with artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction … [and] a capacity not equaled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours.”
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro … life-beganStripped of the nice flowery language it says that a cell is an exceedingly complex arrangement of stardust chemicals. Nothing to do with anything I can see, but your point is that nature is complex, you don't understand it and therefore it is impossible to come about without a god?
I have the say that the logic isn't quite there yet.If you refuse to understand how this relates to the origin of life you're being deliberately obtuse.
I fully understand that you wish readers to think that because it's complex that life required a god. But your wishes do not appear match reality; you have provided exactly zero evidence that the "naturalist" way is impossible. Just a claim that it is so (and a statement that you will provide an probability analysis but have failed to do so), followed by a cry that you don't understand the complexity of life.
So no, I don't understand how a statement that life is complex relates to the origin of life (and don't try to tell me that you know the first "cell" was as complex as any today).I really don't care what readers think especially if they have a philosophical bias such that they are blind to their own fundamental assumptions. This may help broaden your perspective.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/life-cr.htm
Perhaps you can supply a probability analysis that the Big Big didn't really happen? There's your out ... go for it.Sure thing. Let's look at it:
"• Scientific Support? Current theories about chemical evolution seem highly implausible, so the scientific support is very weak. But support is much stronger (*) for biological evolution, for a neo-Darwinian development of biocomplexity and biodiversity. * the scientific support is stronger, but is usually overestimated due to a shifting of support
Nice statement that chemical evolution support is "implausible" (meaning "I dunno but don't like to think about it"), but without supporting evidence. On the other hand we know that stalactites grow, which is but one simple example of such evolution.
• Unifying Function? Most scientists and educators think biological evolution — but not chemical evolution — plays an important unifying role in biology.
Good. Most scientists think evolution plays a part in biology. However, the insinuation is that most scientists think chemical evolution (presumably the formation of molecules) does NOT play a part - something that is again totally unsubstantiated. Can we see, maybe, a respected firm doing a poll of non-believer scientists that think chemistry can't produce life? Or do we have to include all the so-called "scientists" that come to the table with a built-in bias as well?
• Worldview Function? Both types of evolution are necessary for a worldview of naturalism, for a universe with a natural total evolution (astronomical, chemical, and biological), with only normal-appearing natural process throughout the entire history of nature.
Worldview Asymmetry: If a natural origin of life (of any type, anywhere in the universe) is impossible, this would be devastating for the worldview of an atheist, deist, or rigid agnostic. But either way — with or without a natural origin of life — is fine for Christians, including me..."
Great statement, much like Pascals Wager. "If you don't believe like me you may be sorry, so you better believe with or without evidence". As either a logical OR scientific claim it is 100% without merit and so much so that anything else said has a tremendous shadow over it.
I don't claim the big bang didn't happen, while you claim the probability of naturally occurring life is zero. I don't need to prove anything; you still need to be addressing the proof you said you would come up with. You made the claim, you say you can support everything you say; support the probability being zero, please. I've seen a couple of those "proofs", and they were bath a masterpiece of stupidity, logical fallacies and ignorance; hopefully yours (if you ever fulfill your promise) will be better.
"There are so many problems with purely natural explanations for the chemical origin of life on earth that many scientists have already abandoned all hopes that life had a natural origin on earth. Skeptical scientists include Francis Crick (solved the 3-dimensional structure of DNA1) and Fred Hoyle (famous British cosmologist and mathematician), who, in an attempt to retain their atheistic worldviews, then propose outrageously untestable cosmological models or easily falsifiable extra-terrestrial-origin-of-life / panspermia scenarios which still do not account for the natural origin of life. So drastic is the evidence that Scientific American editor John Horgan wrote, "If I were a creationist, I would cease attacking the theory of evolution ... and focus instead on the origin of life. This is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology."
Your standard of "proof" is unscientific. I'm talking about evidence, as in the atheistic claim that "there is no evidence to support a belief in god". Contrary to that statement there is a massive amount of evidence beginning with the cosmological evidence which would reasonably suggest that naturalism isn't the absolute that atheists / naturalists insist upon.
No one has "proof" that they won't be struck by a meteorite on any given day but it is unreasonable to demand proof that there is zero percent chance of it happening before venturing outdoors.
The world has many unreasonable and irrational people and it is not my intention to change them. Ideological zealots exist and many of them are atheists.Nice! "There are lots of things wrong with naturalism, but I decline to provide examples". "We'll just let it stand that way, as proof that life cannot be created without a god".
You claim there is lots of evidence in a god, let's look at what you have provided (and I quote your statements from previous posts:
1. "Time, space, and matter, which are co-relative (GTR) began to exist and thus according to The Principle of Causality (which is one of the First Principles of Logic) ... requires a cause."
A philosophical concept, developed by Aristotle (a non-scientist) and that has been thoroughly debunked and proven false, is evidence of a god that caused the big bang. Furthermore, and still without evidence, is the unstated but accepted notion that it was your god and not some other one that did the deed. Not Zeus, not Thor, not any of the other gods man has come up with - it was your personal god that did it all.
2. "Even the simplest life is so immensely complex that it could not have arisen naturalistically."[i]
Asked for an analysis of this claim, you then stated it would be forthcoming, but have failed to provide it. The claim is therefore worthless as evidence - unsupported claims always are. You have restated the same thing several times, but it always fails without supporting evidence.
3. You then offer a quote from someone else: [i]"But either way — with or without a natural origin of life — is fine for Christians, including me..."
A rehashed version of Pascal's Wager, that is logically fallacious and offers nothing but an incorrect reason to believe - no evidence of a god at all.
These three things, then, are what you have offered as proof that a god was necessary for the big bang to happen and for life to arise. All are either fallacious or (at best) unproven claims, yet you keep on saying the same things as if repeated reiterations of a false logical sequence proves it to be true. It didn't work the first time - it still doesn't work. Can you not provide actual evidence to support your statements?1. "Time, space, and matter, which are co-relative (GTR) began to exist and thus according to The Principle of Causality (which is one of the First Principles of Logic) ... requires a cause."
"A philosophical concept, developed by Aristotle (a non-scientist) and that has been thoroughly debunked and proven false, is evidence of a god that caused the big bang. Furthermore, and still without evidence, is the unstated but accepted notion that it was your god and not some other one that did the deed. Not Zeus, not Thor, not any of the other gods man has come up with - it was your personal god that did it all."
A philosophical concept that is now supported by scientific discovery made under the auspices of methodological naturalism ... as has been covered time and again.
Atheists must deny causality to avoid the facts. Period. As has been stated The Principle of Causality is one of The First Principles of Logic ... not a philosophical concept. Without the First Principles of Logic rational thought isn't possible.
2. "Even the simplest life is so immensely complex that it could not have arisen naturalistically."[i]
Your refusal to to rationally examine your fundamentally flawed assumptions demonstrates that no evidence, no matter how detailed would be sufficient to trump your ideological bias. Your unfamiliarity with the material at hand causes you to be unfamiliar with the standard argument that atheists use when origin of life is raised.
The common ploy is to disassociate the question of origins from naturalistic evolution. That's how bad it is for a naturalistic interpretation of the brute facts.
Now. Please provide evidence that life could have possibly originated naturalistically. Unscientific speculation will not suffice. I'll be waiting."A philosophical concept that is now supported by scientific discovery made under the auspices of methodological naturalism ... as has been covered time and again."
Yes, covered time and again. With a statement that it is true, while we watch subatomic particles come into and out of existence on a random (without cause) basis. It wasn't true the first time, it wasn't true the second or third and it isn't true this time, either. You really need to find another source for the "knowledge" you spread so freely.
"demonstrates that no evidence, no matter how detailed would be sufficient to trump your ideological bias."
What evidence? All you've offered is that it is impossible and you will provide the analysis proving it. Which you have failed to even try to do. Again, what evidence?
You've made the claim (again) - you have the onus of backing it up. You do NOT have the (logical) right to complain that if someone else cannot prove it false then it has to be true. You have failed 100% in your end (not even tried to show proof), but that doesn't mean that anyone else must prove it false. Things should always be presumed false until proven true, doubly so in this day and age of charlatans willing to say anything at all to further their ideology or cause."As has been stated The Principle of Causality is one of The First Principles of Logic ..."
What makes you think that the subatomic world of quantum mechanics is logical? All evidence to date points to the fact that it is not - are you then making the assumption that it is simply because it is necessary to do so in order to support the god theory? That seems an insufficient reason at best...Well, I'd like to get involved in this discussion, but I'm not sure I can. I just got banned again, this time for 7 days, for "personal attacks". So I'm not sure what I can say. Apparently I come off as combative and the HP police feel it their place to protect you fine folks from me and my nasty ways. So, I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings or in some way made you feel you were under attack. It is the ideas I mean to challenge here, while maintaining a healthy respect for the views of individuals. Maybe that hasn't been clear. Anyway, I apologize for the abrupt stoppage of replies. It was beyond my control.
I wonder what constitute this "personal attack" and who decides it!
I asked, but didn't get a response. I'd like to know as well. This was the third time I've been banned and I've yet to figure out what I did to deserve it in any case. HP will respond and say why I was banned with some general terms like "personal attacks", and they'll say in which conversation, but they won't say what quote in particular, they'll just refer me to the 'rules of the forum' page, which are generally defined and liberally applied. Based on nothing more than the mood of those doing the reading from what I can tell.
Been there, done that. Don't think twice about it on MY account (though somebody obviously disagrees!), Headly. Yeah, it's a fine line we sometimes walk with the moderators, and not one that is always very visible.
Do you not see how attributing the things we don't understand, like the inner workings of the mind, to these "illogical" subatomic behaviors is no different than saying "goddunit"? You're just displacing the explanation, attributing it to whatever is still barely understood.
The difference is, science keeps looking. When you attribute things to God, you quit looking for whatever the real answer may be.
That is a false statement on two levels:
1) You assume that God is NOT the 'real' answer.
2) That all people stop looking for the mechanics of how something works just because they are satisfied in their own minds that God is the ultimate cause of that something and how it works.
A belief in God is not an inherent cessation of curiosity.Let's not forget the forefathers of science were themselves Christians. Yet, even though handicapped by a belief in God, found it necessary to continue to investigate and devise a method of inquiry. Or, you can choose to believe the pseudo-historical cynical view that's divisive and disrespectful to nearly half the world's population.
And before that they were pagans and before that they were atheists and before that they were animals. So what? Man has always been curious and looked for answers, and unfounded belief systems has always gotten in the way. Ask Galileo, who was forced to recant his "heliocentrism" and spent many years under house arrest for his heresy. Ask Darwin, who was afraid to publish his research because of church reaction. Knowledge, based on observation and experimentation, has always been antithetical to belief systems; it is one of the reasons we were so slow to develop as a race.
But we are slowly leaving that phase behind us, divisive and disrespectful though it may be.The point is that belief in God does not hamper that search. In spite of their beliefs they still devised ways of determining what's what. A commonly held misconception is that belief in a God hampers one's ability to honestly and openly find answers to how things work.
It would be nice if we could leave this phase behind, but it's not happening fast enough. A lot of believers are being made to feel they have to choose one over the other. To accept science they have to reject God. And of course to a believer that just sounds like a test of faith. They're going to enthusiastically reject science everytime feeling like they've passed the test. I too have a vested interest in future generations in this country being appropriately educated, so it would be nice if we could all keep our heads and remember the long game here. We're only really hurting ourselves with misinformation and bad logic. 20 years from now we'll still be arguing to get evolution taught in schools at this rate.And before that they were atheists?
Do you have proof of that? Or is that the same fallacy that wants all educated people throughout history to have been closet atheists?There is actually some truth to that. Atheism only exists in those ages where reason is king. Basically, God has to be reasoned away. Without it God is a certainty. Only a man's mind can convince himself God isn't there. Delusion.
And only a man's mind can convince him that a god exists. With no observation, imagination becomes king and a god is thus known to exist. Delusion, but one that answers questions and keeps him happy.
God existing requires no convincing. It's the default state of humanity. You think imagination automatically means false? Imagination is intuition. Realizing what cannot be seen based on what can. The clear conclusion is that a God does in fact exist.
The only clear conclusion is that people rely on their imaginations too much.
Sometimes imagination can be a good guide. It's served us well throughout our evolution. That's why we have it.
Imagination is great for starting new paths; for "what if" scenarios. Not so good for coming to conclusions, though, where reason and observation serves SO much better.
You are grossly mis-defining intuition; it has nothing to do with imagination, but rather experience and data. As intuition comes from experience and data, the clear conclusion is that it cannot provide anything about a god. Therefore, the clear conclusion is that we haven't the faintest idea if a god does exist.
I disagree. Imagination is certainly involved in intuition. Intuition is all about what can't be directly seen. You have to rely on what you 'imagine' there to be, beyond the realm of the 'knowable'. Just as it says ...
Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Intuition says there is deliberate intent to what has been 'made'. It is no accident. We are no accident.Then we use the word very, very differently. By your definition we can "intuit" unicorns, dragons, elves and a whole host of gods, calling them all true to fact - by my use of the word that comes ONLY from imagination. Intuition is always based on data (whether good or bad) and personal experience, and thus cannot produce the "fact" of a unicorn flying through the sky.
A matter of semantics, then - you equate "intuition" with "imagination" and I make a very clear distinction.Again, intuition deals with all that can't be directly observed. More exists than what can merely be observed by our inferior senses. We can only see light and hear vibrations and smell particles. Science extends what we can make 'observable', but not entirely. There's still more that extends beyond that. That's where intuition comes in. It imagines possibilities based on the data provided. The mind needs to make sense of and understand things. Intuition fills in the blanks. Imagination is paramount in that task.
There is no reliable data of unicorns or dragons, but there's very real reliable data about a God. Data that is very much consistent with reality.I understand you, and it does explain why you keep insisting we can intuit a god. What you are really saying is that we can imagine a god, with which I have no problems at all as we've been doing it since time immemorial. The only objection I have is with that "very real reliable data about a god", as there is exactly zero of that outside of our imagination. Saying that the universe could not exist without a god to create it is nonsense; we have no idea of what there was "before" the universe or whether any of the natural laws (specifically causality) existed in that "before". There has been zero indication since of a god, at least outside of man's imagination and his eagerness to assign things/events to that imagined god that he has no logical right to do.
Given that, we're back to what you have been saying; that we imagine a god and declare it real without ever knowing if it is or not. And I have no problem agreeing with that - it has been seen with thousands of gods as well as uncounted numbers of other imagined creatures, events and things.Hello Wild. Happy Easter.
Regarding the Bible as history, are the exploits of man found there in conflict with accepted secular history? If so where?
"Show me the empirical evidence" used to be the battle cry of atheist here on the Hub regarding existence of God until "someone" looked at the definition. Haven't heard that demand of late.
Inherent knowledge of God is neither instinctive nor intuitive. We find this inherency in the moral codes of history which are as old as history. Even the pagan who moved away from God produced moral codes that protected their social interests. And again, these codes were based on the inherent actions of man. Which brings us back to secular history.Hi, Mish - hope you are having a wonderful Easter.
Considering the date, we can start with the "history" of a 3 day old dead man coming to life. We can continue with a world wide flood (Yes, yes, I know - if we change the biblical history to indicate only a small local flood it works), and finish with the talking snake in the Garden.
But moral codes are neither universal nor static. Everything under the sun has been considered moral at one place or another, one time or another. Morals change through time as well, with every culture evolving into something that, morally speaking, it was not. The inevitable conclusion is that moral codes are not "inherent", and neither are they from a god. Morals are often claimed to have originated from a god, any god, as a method of control and to give a sense of authority, but facts would dictate otherwise.Your answer regarding the Bible is to the issues you have with it. It does not respond to my question which is the exploits of man (or mankind if you wish). Is the "history of the exploits" of man as laid out in the Bible incorrect? And we are not addressing the "supernatural acts" of God. Did man do this and that as stated? Does secular history agree in whole or part?
Man, and importantly those in political office today, knows what is right and what is wrong inherently. Laws are made to govern our societies (America i.e. Canada and the USA in particular) according to a prescribed set of rules. Of course, many of those prescribing do not feel obligated to follow them, and yes, its kinda like the "church." But the standards are there and have been since time began. Only those that would be demigods feel the right to change these. So what was the benchmark used by "primitive man" to establish these rules? Certainly not personal virtue or common sense and decency.
Empirical evidence was demanded in the past but has now fallen to the wayside because it is a valid proof of fact in both science and faith. However, while it seems to be accepted as useful in the scientific realm, it continues to be guffawed at in the realm of faith.Don't be silly, Mish - those laws and rules (along with the morals they are often based upon) are continually evolving (both bad and good). There is absolutely nothing sacred or universal about any of them. They are not from a god - they are from people wishing to control the actions of others.
Whether speeding laws, laws against gays marrying (or biracial marriages), laws burning witches or providing for the inquisition, laws arresting people for heresy - laws are designed to control the actions of others. Some are for the good of the community (as that community defines "good") but a great many are simply to force others to live a lifestyle the majority thinks is best for them.To the first paragraph, there is nothing evolving, but devolving. The issues of "right and wrong" have only changed in certain societies for periods of time. Rebellion is brought on when those in charge move to far away from that which is prescribed by God. That is the history of man. One does not need to accept God to know and understand the value of that inherent knowledge of man.
As to the last, it is really quite a naive statement. Changes in the laws today are dictated by the minority groups named. The majority has nothing to do with it, except to pay the bills. The loudest (and best funded) group, the squeaky wheel, gets the oil. And again, the history of man. The folks now running things were the ones bombing government building and burning flags in the 60's.
Yamamoto said of America in 1941, "I am afraid we have awaken the sleeping bear." The minority is now poking the hibernating bear with their complaints and demands. The results of the indolent giving into the malcontents is now being played out in many countries as well as America.
I fear America is on the verge of some bloody times, again because it is no longer a "Christian Nation" guided by that which they know to be inherently correct.Really? God prescribed that blacks and whites not intermarry. He prescribed that blacks were not "people", but a subhuman race. He prescribed to stone non-virginal women and beat children. "God" has prescribed a great many things that we have evolved away from in this country, although others still hold to them (ISIS comes to mind). Holding too close to "God's word" brings out rebellion, not the reverse, and we have repeatedly seen that in this country.
Again, Really? It is the minority producing the Indiana law on gay service? In those areas still condoning school prayer, it is the minority doing it? It was the minority holding people in slavery? I don't see it that way.
True, and another reason to stand up and demand equal treatment for all rather than the majority (Christians in this country, Muslims in others). Get rid of the old "God prescribed" laws and replace them with something fair to all.
Yes it is. Because the Christian power is slipping. "God's power" is on the decline and the majority don't like any other lifestyle of belief system to be available to others. Morally we are slowly improving, dragging the religious out of their outdated moral structure, kicking and screaming all the way but being drug along anyway.Not sure where you get most of "the above," but for the most part, it just reads like a libertine catalogue of how to waste time and effort on things. So I'll just address the two items of importance in the order of importance.
I wouldn't say God's power is declining nor is morality on the up swing. On the contrary, the cesspool that has become "morality," and its cousin "public opinion," is the prime example of a society that has walked away from God.
Indiana. Its too bad that politicians are so easily and quickly swayed by a few malcontents (5-8% of the population) and their techno (mostly non existent) supporters. Election polls have a way of doing that. And, then again, the reaction really has little or nothing to do with public good. These same whine and snivel folks are the ones that screamed like banshees regarding the sanctity of the "bedroom," the incursion into personal rights. But, when thinking folks chose to exercise these same rights, they become bigots and such. One has to wonder how long this crowd searched for a catalyst, a person of honesty, so they could begin a new pogrom.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous your counter argument sounds? I'm supposed to buy that humans just make up gods to explain things away? Even though these are the same humans that invented mathematics and astronomy and the written language. I'm sorry, but I just don't find your counter argument to be factual or even possible. That's the problem. My explanation just plain makes more sense. Yours doesn't stand on its own as a viable explanation.
Yes, "before" the universe there was no time. Which is exactly how God is described. Without time you have no cause, no way for the singularity to change from one state to the next. No causality. No laws. Nothing. Yet it was all set in motion in some way.And do YOU have any idea how ridiculous it sounds to say people don't invent things to satisfy their questions and imaginations? Things like unicorns, dragons, elves, demons, dwarves (living underground in mines, not living dwarves we see on the streets), fairies, witches, werewolves, wizards practicing magic, ghosts, UFO's probing people, Nessie, vampires, bigfoot, gnomes...the list is endless of imagined creatures, gods, events and things that man has imagined and thought to be real. Gods are just the tip of the iceberg.
Yes. Set in motion some way. So we'll invent a god that did it instead of looking for a real answer - that's what I said. Because, of course, we know all about singularities, know exactly what goes on inside of them and know they cannot "blow up" without an outside cause. Of course.You keep trying to throw these things together as if there's some ancient text that talks about unicorns and dragons and such. The ancient cultures all just talked about one thing. Gods. Not for nothing. For a reason. Not to explain things they didn't understand, but to describe what was going on in their lives. Their lives were affected by these gods. But because what they observed at the time is so different than what we observe now you assume it's all fictional. Though they all described the same things. Yet I'm supposed to buy that ancient humans spent the time it takes to carve into stone total nonsense for no reason. Try again.
What you're not acknowledging is that whatever came "before" the universe is by definition supernatural. It didn't exist in a causal space of time and dimension. Yet, somehow, the universe, complete with all the necessary matter and energy and natural laws to shape it all, right from the start, came into being. What about that says to you that no god was necessary?"Not to explain things they didn't understand, but to describe what was going on in their lives."
I do believe that's what I said. They didn't understand why their crops failed, they didn't understand what the big yellow ball in the sky was, they didn't understand why people died from illness. So they came up with an answer: "Goddunnit". And, without ever testing the idea for veracity, it was accepted as absolute truth.
So come out of the Christian faith for a moment and look at all the other gods man has produced. Then tell me they all said the same thing, that they all described the same entity. It seems very odd that you are quite willing to throw away and ignore all the other thousands of gods, while claiming the one true god you accept is real and all with the exact same evidence.
I accept the word of those that are knowledgeable about the subject of creation. Now, what makes you say that a god WAS necessary? The book of Mormon? The Koran? Or just ignorance of what made things work prior to the big bang?All the mythologies claim one true God of the gods, god of heaven. He was El to the Sumerians. Zeus to the Greeks, Jupiter to the Romans.
You do realize everyone's on the same level as far as ignorance of what came before the big bang.
You have such a cynical view of ancient cultures. You assume they were complete morons. They didn't just dream things up like what you say. They invented mathematics and astronomy to try to make sense of things.
They also figured out why their crops were failing and fixed it. The sun is described in Genesis as the great light that rules the day, so they knew quite well what that was. It wasn't a god. It was a light.But only one, the Christian (and Muslin) god is defined as being undetectable, from another universe, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. None of the others had those attributes and thus were not the same entity. Claiming they were simply because they were all gods doesn't make the grade. Plus, of course, most cultures had a whole raft of gods; something Christianity denies as being true in spite of the many known battles between gods.
That they fixed what was wrong with their crops is a good example of the evolution of man's gods. It starts with the gods making things grow, but they learned (just as you say) that it isn't gods at all and their beliefs change. Just as we are now learning that living organisms evolve and don't spring fully developed from a hand of a god and the belief in that scenario is changing as well. Just as we are beginning to tap into the knowledge of the big bang and find there was no need for a god; the first step in learning how it actually happened. None of which the ancients understood, but we have built on their shoulders and learned.
No, they were not morons, they just didn't have the millenia of accumulated knowledge to work with that we do. There is a reason the knowledge curve of man is asymptotic, and it isn't the belief in gods. It's because nearly all knowledge has a prerequisite in what was already known.
It's much like calling the closest star (which they also didn't know) a "light". It most certainly is NOT a light although it emits photons; it is an unbelievably large (to the ancients) ball of hydrogen gas (which they didn't know existed) just as "god" is not an intelligent entity but rather a collection of events and things that made and make our universe.That isn't true at all. If you're familiar with Genesis then you'll know it speaks of numerous other gods. Including the gods that the people of Ur ( a Sumerian city) worshipped, where Abraham was from. And no, in that age God wasn't invisible. That didn't happen until the NT. When faith was the key. God gave us all the capability of being a 'son of God' by simply believing what couldn't be seen. So He stepped back as to not influence our free will to choose Him.
Sorry, the Sumerian tale was not a part of what I was taught about the Christian god(s). Nor do I believe you will find any mainstream Christian sect agreeing that there is more than one (outside of the Trinity, where there is great disagreement).
The bible says not a single man may see his face and live. Not that he was detectable to the ancient peoples. That they claimed to have spoken with the god is a far, far cry from Him being detectable by people.
Nor can most people simply believe whatever they wish. I've had this discussion before and will suggest that no matter how hard you try to convince yourself that god does not exist you will not be successful in that endeavor. So His "gift" is worthless for most of us, something invented by believers to indicate their superiority or perhaps how great their god is.Well that all comes from reassessing with modern knowledge. Just as St. Augustine once said, scripture should be interpreted in light of modern knowledge. That's what I'm doing. Modern knowledge says the Sumerian gods were the sons of God of Genesis.
Moses was unable to look on His face, but Adam could. Adam was not as corrupt and 'human' as Moses.
God's gift doesn't make you superior. You have it as well. It's a free will, which you are exercising now by rejecting Him. That alone makes more powerful than any of God's creatures. You are able to behave according to your own will apart from His.Sounds like you are changing His words to mean something other than what was intended; this is indeed how religions evolve and beliefs change. And how the gods are gradually disappearing from mans belief systems as well.
But there was no Adam; the Adam of the bible was but a single celled creature without a brain or eyes. It could not look on anything at all.
Nope - will does not enter into belief. Now, you may choose to believe that it does, but will alone cannot produce belief contrary to knowledge. Only emotional desires can do that.Yes, religions change with new information. The old religions are based on conclusions drawn on old information. I'm using new information. I probably don't have it all right, but I'm closer than previous incantations.
Haha.. what? Adam was a single-celled amoeba? That's a new one. From what I can tell it says he's a man. In fact 'Adam' actually means 'man'. So that's confusing.
Will has everything to do with belief. If it didn't then it would be automatic. If it was then it wouldn't be possible to not believe, therefore the requirement of belief would be pointless, as would judgement.That IS kind of the point; religions change with new information. Unfortunately for the existence of a god, there never WAS information (just guesses and wants), so there is nothing to change. We're still stuck with believing based on want.
As there is no evidence for a god making a man, and there IS vast amounts of information that species change from prior species, we can conclude that the first organism was a simple, one celled creature and that must have been the "man" that god created. Unless "Lucy" was Adam?
You're right in that belief that is not based on evidence is pretty worthless. At least to the believer - shamans and priests throughout history have made pretty good use of it. But I also repeat that I don't think for a minute you could ever convince yourself that there is no god. No amount of will, for you, will ever suffice just as no amount of will can ever convince me without supporting evidence. As no god has ever seen fit to provide that evidence, His promise is thus worthless and doubly so if one assumes (as most do) that God has designed and constructed them according to His blueprint.That and cooperating evidence. There's a God described that only really makes sense in the guise of modern knowledge. No beginning, no end, no time, being in all places at once, no space, the universe being the personification of His will, so a universe that by all appearances formed itself is exactly what we should expect to see.
Yes, religions change. Those stories are vague, there was no context to draw from. Until now. No, Adam was not the first human. He fits right in line with modern knowledge.
It takes will to maintain faith. I willfully maintained faith in the face of seeming contradictions, and was rewarded with a deeper understanding.But an eternal god, taking up the entire universe we occupy but existing nowhere does NOT make sense. It is completely outside any experience we have and thus cannot make sense. Nor does the universe being a personification of His will make any sense, no matter how it turns out
...Unless one wants a god. Then any attributes given that god make perfect sense to the believer. And that brings us to the matter of will to maintain faith. I do not doubt for one moment that it has taken great will - as new information became available it was obvious that the old god would no longer be believable. So you've made a new one, one that fits with what we know but that also still maintains the idea that the god wants YOU, made the universe for YOU and cares about YOU. And that definitely takes will and effort - both of which you've put into the project of making your god.
But that doesn't make the god any more believable to anyone else. It remains unsupported outside of your own will to believe. Without that huge desire, that want, for a god your "evidence" leads nowhere but to the same place all the other gods of man have ended up. The hypothesis are wrong or unknown, the logic faulty and the conclusion (to the unbeliever) is based entirely on that desire rather than on factual information.
Which is why we will never agree on the existence of a god. I simply cannot follow your train of thought without questioning it, and those question always remain either unanswered or answered with such comments as "but it makes sense", when it makes zero sense to me.Right, and there's the desire to deny belief. It goes both ways. To any rational person, a God who continues to consistently fit as the details change would be a sign of relevancy. Yes, an eternal God taking up the entire universe does make sense. That means that He exists in every moment exactly the same, unchanged by time. Which is exactly how believers describe Him. That's how He can be such a personal God. He's connected to each of us in every moment. Present and unchanged in every moment. Not affected by time or space, but constant and eternal. Just as He was billed thousands of years before we had the information to understand what that all means.
It makes perfect sense to me. It's kind of scary to accept. That He's right there watching all you do. If one doesn't want a God then they're going to be prone to ignore these kinds of things. The same goes for supportive evidence. You don't want to accept, or even consider it. Like a lot of former believers I've talked to, the mere consideration that God may be real is scary to them. And they just stepped out from under that fear by convincing themselves there is no God recently. To second guess that is rattling.
No matter how many times you ask, or what you ask, my answers remain consistent for a reason."To any rational person, a God who continues to consistently fit as the details change would be a sign of relevancy."
Unfortunately, according to you, god is not consistent. He changes all the time as our knowledge grows and our ignorance diminishes. And that is part of the problem; God is constantly redefined, with different actions, different attributes and different realities (is there a Hell or not?). You want your god, so those changes are ignored or written off as just learning more, but they are far more than that.
As far as being as described - of course the description (current, not old) is how He is seen. We cannot know if that description is correct, but it will always fit the description of God, by definition if nothing else. Yet you try to use that definition as proof of a god, and it simply does not work.
Yes, the concept of an omnipotent being that takes notice of us IS scary. While you insist that entity is benevolent, history tells us otherwise with genocide, mass murder, torture of innocent people, child murders...the list is long. And if that entity, acting so capriciously, is indeed watching us it is scary. Fortunately, I believe that IF there is a god we are to it as the amoeba is to us; completely insignificant and of little to no interest. It is incredible to me to think that such a creature wants pets so far below it any more than we would want an amoeba for a pet.No, no, it's only human perception that changes. God doesn't change, the facts don't change, only our awareness of the facts and our perception. And I'm not using that description of God to prove God. I'm trying to show you how God as described thousands of years ago is consistent with what we've only learned recently. I can only point it out, it's your perception getting in the way of seeing the relevance.
God as described thousands of years ago was an evil, spoiled, disgusting child. And His actions bore that out, in spades.
But now He is kind, good and gentle. He either changed or our description of Him did. Or we just choose to ignore what He did - always a popular option to those that want god to be something other than what he is described.
You see, that's the difference. I read the bible and accept that the people then knew god and described Him as He is. You read the same words and don't like them, so pretend they mean something else.No, he hasn't changed. Only the perception of Him. In the OT God was just as He needed to be. Free will was running rampant and God tried to control their behavior in any way He could. He tried to control them through fear, through commandments, through warnings and striking them down and everything else. Then in the NT He stepped back, allowing people to choose of their own free will whether or not to adhere to commands freely of their own will rather than being coerced.
No, He didn't try to control them any way He could and He wasn't as He needed to be. As an omnipotent being he could have just controlled them, without murdering innocent people along the way. There was absolutely no need for the viscous and unwarranted actions against people that had done nothing to deserve any punishment at all, let alone dying (the first born of Egypt, for example). For Pete's sake, the bible states that Pharaoh was ready to let the jews go, but God changed his mind FOR him! Presumably so He could make a bigger impression on the Jews by murdering more people.
Now, you can make up excuses (maybe to maintain the illusion of free will?) but they don't hold any water. That god was evil, plain and simple. And now the claim is that He is wonderful - either He has changed or is still the spoiled child He was then.No, He couldn't just control them because that's not free will. Free will is the central theme to the OT. From the moment it was introduced through Adam and Eve the theme of the OT becomes about how humans behave contrary to God's will. That's what the commandments are for. God was not in control. That's why He did the things He did.
As for the exodus, God was about to lead a whole group of people He had no control over into the wild. He needed them to trust Him. Even if that meant the passover. It's all about trying to control human behavior. That's what it's all about. Trying to control something that is inherently out of control.You're talking in circles. People have free will, but God must control them. And Pharaoh - where was his free will when God changed his mind for him?
But at the bottom of it all, there just isn't free will when the choice is death. And that's what God offered most people: "Do as I say, with all my little ridiculous rules, or I will kill you". There's no free will there, regardless of how much you would twist it by saying there is. Even Adam didn't really have free will - god MADE him in such a way as to accept the apple and then punished you and I for it.You've got it all wrong. For one thing, none of us asked to exist. So if you don't want to do what's necessary, you simply cease to exist. Which is as fair as it gets. And no, God made Adam with free will. It was of His own free will, directly against God's law, that he chose to eat from the forbidden tree. That story directly illustrates the fact that Adam had free will. That's what the whole scenario was for.
Yes, God must control them. Because of Adam's sin, Jesus was necessary. God had to ensure Jesus was born in an environment that He had no control over. The stories of the OT is God doing what He had to to create Jesus in an environment not under His control.Yes, if we don't eat we will starve and cease to exist. But that a god will destroy us for not following orders...well, that has nothing to do with anything but sadism.
Disagree - It's fine for you to sit back and say Adam did what he did from free will, but the root of the matter was that he was made in such a way that he could not (would not?) obey. The real "criminal" was thus the god that made him. Adam was no different than a modern child that, told not to do something, will almost inevitably reach out and do so anyway. You can almost SEE the wheel turning in their heads, and just know that they are going to disobey. That's the way they are made - to disobey and test their limits whenever possible and there is no reason to think Adam was made any differently.
Baloney. Not only was the suffering of Jesus unnecessary (God could have flicked His fingers and accomplished the identical thing without anyone being hurt), but His actions did nothing to "set up" the scenario. Unless you're blaming God for the Jews captivity, their turning from god, the Roman ascent to power, and finally the Jews turning on their savior? It DOES sound like something the OT god would do - through massive sadism hurt everyone He "loves" while writing it off "for their own good". But it's not something I'd swallow in a loving god.Not true at all. He was simply made with a will of his own. He disobeyed of his own volition. That's the whole point to the story. That's why he was put into that situation. God was testing His creation.
Jesus suffering was not for nothing. It was a sacrifice. Yes, the Israelites were in captivity. That kept them out of the mix and kept their bloodline pure. They were protected and provided for for 400 years. And all the things the Israelites were commanded to do were the things that were necessary to survive in that environment. The environment created by free will. God was keeping His promise to Abraham that his descendants would many.
God went above and beyond, and well out of His way, to ensure we have wills of our own. That's the point of the story.Don't be silly - putting the Jews into captivity will dilute their bloodline, not protect it. That's like saying that the slavery of blacks in America kept their bloodline pure while their owners had babies with them.
In any case, that captivity was done by god, not by them. They were not there of their own free will - they were there because god put them there, turning them into not only His own slaves but slaves of the Romans.Nonsense, they were there of their own free will. It was actually Abraham's will. They were protected and provided for and kept away from other groups to breed with. When they asked to be set free they were set free. That's what they wanted.
Sure thing. All slaves want to be slaves as they are protected and cared for (ever see "Roots"?). And for sure they just asked politely and were set free...after all the Egyptians were punished because their government kept slaves, and after the pursuing Egyptian army was destroyed by god.
Speaking only for myself, this is the kind of rationalization that ruins the whole religion thing. There isn't a chance in the world that the Israelites wanted to be slaves, but we'll say they did because it makes god look better.Not at all. Egypt was simply the group in power. In that age you were either in power, enslaved by those in power, or out in the wilderness on your own. If you needed to maintain a large population, like the Jews were, you'd either need your own land with ample water supply, or be enslaved by those who do. It wasn't a bad gig then. This is the environment that free will created. Humans created it for themselves. God allowed for that and simply worked within that environment to do what He needed to do.
Again, I can only see that as pure rationalization. You're making the claim that every culture on earth either maintained slaves or were slaves and I simply don't buy it.
Either way, though, it was unnecessary. After all, just 40 years later God gave them other land by kicking out the owners there - He could have done the same thing to the Egyptians. According to you in spite of and against their wishes as they would rather be slaves. I just cannot buy it.Every culture on that part of the Earth during that time, Yes. The Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Indus Valley, they all had slaves. That's how you survived that age. You needed the workforce to work the fields. To grow the food. To do the labor.
As long as they were fine as slaves that was fine. They were taken care of. But when they "cried out" and God "heard their cries" He sent Moses in to free them. He then provided them with the land they would need. All suitable land would have already been taken by someone. If you wanted land for yourself you'd have to take it. That was simply the way of the world in that age. It's important to read and interpret these stories in the correct context. That is the context of this age.I fully agree that that was the context of the age, which is why the god they lay claim to had the same lack of morals. Not that an omnipotent god couldn't have done better, but that it reflected the people of the time. Now, of course, we design our gods with a much different moral structure and the result is that the god of the OT is now found to be cruel, violent and viscious, capricious in the extreme and quite evil. Which kind of makes us wonder about the "never changing" part.
But you are rather forgetting that slave labor can never compete with free men - the production vs cost just isn't there. So they weren't needed, any more than the American south needed slaves; it was convenient for those that could afford them.What is free in that age? Being out on your own in the wild? No food to feed your people, no land to farm or a water supply. It's not like there was an economy that allowed freed people to go out and get a job. This was the culture created by humans with free will. Economies came later.
That would not be the case. There was a thriving economy, with stores, shops and word to do. But whether there was or not, "free" does not include an owner.
Free also does not include a livelihood. Free slaves didn't get their own store fronts with product to sale. Your options in that age were very limited. Especially when you have hundreds of thousands of people to support, as the Jews did. Unless you had your own army you really only had one choice. Slavery.
So...much like today. Stores aren't free to open, but I'd have to say it was likely to be MUCH easier then. No ADA, no fire codes, etc. And stores open today, stores opened then.
Nor does the fact there were lots of them make any difference; that's like saying that orientals in the US have a hard time because there are so many mouths to feed. Not that I see the Jewish population numbering the in the hundreds of thousands back then. Perhaps 20,000, although I'm purely guessing based on the tales of exodus. You can't be a nomadic tribe with a quarter million people; the water and sanitation problems would immediately defeat you if nothing else.You're right, no regulations to deal with. Also, no normal channels to go through. No store front properties to purchase, no supply chains. Nothing, actually. I wouldn't say it was easier. The opposite actually. Plus, these people wouldn't have the knowledge of how to do it, or even that maybe they could. Plus, you've got hundreds of thousands of people to support, not just a wife and kids.
Have your read the book of numbers? That's what that book is. A census of the Jewish population. And yes, there were hundreds of thousands of them.
Right, exactly. They were nomads with nowhere to go. No food to live on. No supplies. God had to provide for them in the wild. Mana from heaven and water from rocks. But they had to trust Him and follow Moses. So He had to show them His power.
