Disturbing Passage from The Bible

01/18/2007 01:26:41 PM · #751

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by Flash:

Thanks.

In the beginning was there one or more than one single cell?

There is a timeline here.

3000 million years of single cells (of increasing complexity).

In contrast, all multicellular life forms that we see around us have taken only (!) 1000 million years to evolve. And the first 400 million years of that was algae and seaweed. Evolution accelerates in an increasingly complex environment.

Other key dates are 180 million years since the break up of a single land mass into the continents, 65 million years since the end of the dinosaurs, 200,000 years since earliest humans appeared, 10,000 years since the first human settlements and the development of agriculture.

It really is amazing. "god did it" is so uninspiring by comparison.

Except at this rate of evolution we will all be God's pretty soon.

01/18/2007 01:34:07 PM · #752

Originally posted by Flash:

(I am not claiming that life begins AT fertilization - [although many would] - only that life begins as a cell/s).

Some would say that it happens at an earlier stage (hence the prohibition of onanism).

Originally posted by Flash:

If this is true, then we are merely a leg on the evolution ladder and will adapt/change to our enviornment as it mandates in the future.

Yes? No?

The difficulty with evolution for humanity is that we are the first creatures to adapt our habitat, our environment, in a meaningful way. Rather than evolving to suit our changing environment, we have the power to adapt our environment.

The straight answer to your question is "yes", but that we may not face a changing environment (and therefore no evolutionary pressure) if we manage to master the environment.

There was a news story earlier this week about evolution in Europeans 50k years ago (preceding the development of agriculture). So humans do appear to have been subject to evolution in relatively recent history, and it is possible that we will in the future be subject to evolutionary pressures once again.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/18/2007 01:41:28 PM · #753

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

If man is not evolving then he must be at the top of the heirarchy, and if he is evolving then one day he will be God and sit at the top of the heirarchy. Regardless, either man or God will be at the top.

;-} Please forgive me, I couldn't help myself.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/18/2007 02:27:03 PM · #754

Originally posted by Flash:

I couldn't help myself.

Try harder. :-P

You insist on this heirarchy thing, when it's an artificial categorization. The top of our government heirarchy is the President. So what? Whether the top was further back at the senate or continued further to a king, it has no relevance in terms of proof of anything higher.

However... given that man is the dominant life form at the moment, with the power to destroy other species and change the environment itself, you might easily argue that in many ways we HAVE become masters of our own universe.

01/19/2007 06:16:25 AM · #755

I would still be interested in a response to these points made to RonB.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I accept that you may make a declaration and believe it to be accurate, but what you appear to be saying is that other people may look at the same thing with a different view and come up with a different interpretation - but, critically, that their interpretation is not necessarily any more or less correct than yours: it is simply different. Logic dictates that your interpretation is no better than anyone else's (even though, obviously, you believe your specific "colour" to be the correct one).

I am not asking you to say that you don't believe, or that your belief is wrong. I am asking you to acknowledge that, given the unknowability of the subject matter, your belief has no greater access to the actual "colour" than anyone else's belief. While you may be right, so may anyone else who has a belief.

Originally posted by LegalBeagle:

I am asking you to acknowledge that you do not have greater access to some "truth" than anyone else. I am pointing out the existence of alternative beliefs, and asking you to acknowledge that your belief has the same degree of authority as other religious beliefs - no greater authority (except within its own teaching).

01/19/2007 07:06:31 AM · #756

Originally posted by scalvert:

You insist on this heirarchy thing, when it's an artificial categorization. The top of our government heirarchy is the President. So what? Whether the top was further back at the senate or continued further to a king, it has no relevance in terms of proof of anything higher.

I believe that you are confusing two different arguments. One argument is simply about the existence of heirarchies and mans propensity to see the "world" through them. This argument is simply about A. heirarchies exist. B. man sees the world though them. C. since heirchies exist and man sees the world through them, then something must be at the top of the heirarchy.

Regardless of where the top is (as in your example the president or senate or whatever) something is at the top. It must for it to be a heirarchy. If however, your are claiming that they do not exist or that man does not view the world through them, then please put forth your argument for their non-existence.

Using evolution as an example, (and I am truly intrigued by this concept), I believe you to claim that all life (as we know it today and have evidence of it in the past) originated from a one celled organism. Does the emergence of man as "the master of his universe" (to use your words) from a single cell billions of years ago, add any insight to heirarchies?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/19/2007 10:15:06 AM · #757

Originally posted by Flash:

I think that both arguments are the same: hierarchies are created by man in order to better understand the world. They do not exist independently. I can present you (and have done so) with a hierarchy within which god is at the bottom rather than the top, simply by changing the basis upon which I choose to arrange a particular hierarchy.

Originally posted by Flash:

Using evolution as an example, (and I am truly intrigued by this concept), I believe you to claim that all life (as we know it today and have evidence of it in the past) originated from a one celled organism. Does the emergence of man as "the master of his universe" (to use your words) from a single cell billions of years ago, add any insight to heirarchies?

Again - you can order the hierarchy as you will. Creature with the most power over his environment? Then "yes", humans come out on top. Creature best adapted to deep water living? Then "no" - we are near the bottom of the hierarchy, and some fish or crustacean will come out on top.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/19/2007 11:24:12 AM · #758

Originally posted by Flash:

Does the emergence of man as "the master of his universe" (to use your words) from a single cell billions of years ago, add any insight to heirarchies?

Nope, not really. Hierarchies don't tend to be one-way streets. The president may be at the top of our political hierarchy, but he still answers to the people. A CEO may be at the top of a corporate hierarchy, but he (or she) still answers to the board or shareholders. If man is considered at the top of the animal hierarchy, he is still dependent upon other life for food. So regardless of what you think is at the top, the peak requires the foundation to support it. For this reason, nothing can really be the master of its own universe. I only know of one exception, where a "top" supposedly exists without a bottom...

But I digress. Your contention, "If it is true that man needs a hierarchy and thus a God(s)..." assumes that one requires the other. Just because something is organized in a hierarchy, that doesn't mean any particular thing must be at the top. What's the top of a company run by its employees? It is simply not true that man needs a god (you can find some who don't right here in this thread). What man probably DOES need is order, because civilizations are better able to care for themselves and cope with hardship than lawless anarchies. Order increases your chances of survival, and what better leverage for establishing authority than fear of the unknown?

You point to the apparent historical ubiquity of belief in the supernatural as proof that there must be something to it, but you're not looking at it from the other angle. If a trembling group of people turns to its leader for answers after a meteor shower, what answer is going to strengthen that leader's authority, "I don't know" or "The sky god is angry, and this is what we have to do..."? People really like to have hope, and "I don't know" isn't a very satisfying answer. We want to do SOMEthing to prevent more fireballs from raining down on us, so let's listen to that guy who knows the answer and burn a wallaby on the second full moon. Worth a try, right? It's certainly not hard for the leader to claim success because, hey, no more meteor showers and just look at that pretty sunset! The sky god is happy again. The people have more hope, the leader has more power (oooh... he's got a secret hotline to the sky god!), and we end up with a bazillion different religions that have little in common other than a belief in something supernatural that has more control than we do. The more vague and unprovable a religion is, the longer it will last, but we need SOME specifics or nobody will believe it. Contemporary miracles won't generally work because people can check out the facts. What to do? Take some old stories (that big flood your great grandparents passed along) and turn them into historical accounts. So what if you embellish a few details? No one's around to dispute the story, and any evidence that there really was a flood or somebody really did exist will just "prove" the veracity of your claim.

This is a nice gig if you can get it... religious leaders sometimes enjoy more power and wealth than kings. They can commission incredible works of art and architecture. With enough supporters, you only have to answer to a "higher" authority, and who's going to question you? Doubters can be labeled heretics and spurned or killed by your followers. One little catch to job security is that you must believe the stories yourself enough to die for them because a religion ain't gonna last if the leaders waver in their belief. Hmm... but first you need to get those followers, and maybe eliminate the competition. Alrighty then. "I just got off the phone, and god says it's your duty to have kids. LOTS of kids! Your kids must be taught this truth so they can live forever in an unprovable nirvana. Don't listen to those others guys. Disbelievers will die, uh... an extra, secret death AFTER they die and be tortured forever with eternal re-runs of Gilligan's Island and HDR photo slide shows in an equally unprovable hell! We must SAVE them by teaching them the truth!" Of course, more kids and more followers means you have more people to fight for you and defend your turf. If my army wipes out your army, then my god is obviously stronger than your god and you must believe this is the truth.

The strength (and weakness) of "vague and unprovable" beliefs is that they're subject to interpretation. If a new discovery contradicts belief, then you simply reinterpret the meaning. Translators work out great for this, and illiteracy on the part of the followers doesn't hurt. If you're charismatic leader with a good following and you don't like the way the other shepherds are going with the flock, you may be able to proclaim your own interpretation and branch off from the main group. If the disagreement is minor, then the groups will tolerate each other. If not, then you might convince the most faithful your group to try and kill off the other guys. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar... ;-)

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/19/2007 12:07:58 PM · #759

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I would still be interested in a response to these points made to RonB.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I accept that you may make a declaration and believe it to be accurate, but what you appear to be saying is that other people may look at the same thing with a different view and come up with a different interpretation - but, critically, that their interpretation is not necessarily any more or less correct than yours: it is simply different. Logic dictates that your interpretation is no better than anyone else's (even though, obviously, you believe your specific "colour" to be the correct one).

No, Matthew, LOGIC does NOT *dictate* that. If someone blew a perfect middle 'C' on a pitch pipe and asked 1000 people to sing that note, there is a great likelihood that not many would exercise perfect pitch. But there ARE people who have perfect pitch and COULD sing that note. Pure LOGIC does NOT *dictate* that the entire 1000 has the same chance of hitting the note correctly.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I am not asking you to say that you don't believe, or that your belief is wrong. I am asking you to acknowledge that, given the unknowability of the subject matter, your belief has no greater access to the actual "colour" than anyone else's belief. While you may be right, so may anyone else who has a belief.

I don't have to 'name' the colour to 'know' it. The problem is that not everyone is looking at the same object. That's why they see different colours. If they were looking at the same object as I am, then discussion is possible.

Originally posted by LegalBeagle:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I am asking you to acknowledge that you do not have greater access to some "truth" than anyone else. I am pointing out the existence of alternative beliefs, and asking you to acknowledge that your belief has the same degree of authority as other religious beliefs - no greater authority (except within its own teaching).

Hypothetically, what you say is possible. But that's as far as it goes. I can't acknowledge it empirically, because the truth is what it is. Either I'm right and others are wrong, or they are right and I'm wrong. But it's not a matter of odds. There is only one correct answer.

Louis

Nikon D800

01/19/2007 12:21:30 PM · #760

Originally posted by Flash:

You have the logic backwards. Your B proposition does not follow from A, and nobody has suggested that A is conclusive. It would be more appropriate to say, "1: Humans view the universe in terms of an order known as hierarchy, therefore 2: hierarchies exist." And 1 is a "given" here merely for the sake of argument and to elucidate the overall problem many people have with sticking to strict dialectic discourse, and not, as legalbeagle has pointed out, because it is a conclusively and independently proven fact.

You may view this as nit-picking over the details of the discourse, but it is exactly the kind of lax language that you tend to present that leads to false conclusions. It is very easy to get sloppy and simply state that A follows from B therefore C is true, without giving any thought to the inferences of the language you use. As we know, without the strictest of discipline, language can be used by anyone to twist the meaning of something to one's own liking.

Originally posted by Flash:

Does the emergence of man as "the master of his universe" (to use your words) from a single cell billions of years ago, add any insight to heirarchies?

No. And it is unclear to me why you are mixing two unrelated discussions, unless you already have a conclusion you'd like to prove by simpling manipulating the language you use. Furthermore, I think it has been satisfactorily outlined that a "single cell" is a misleading way at looking at the origin of life, again by use of undisciplined language.

01/19/2007 12:21:58 PM · #761

Originally posted by RonB:

Your example imports a degree of skill to acurately assessing god. Is skill involved?

Given the invisibility of the target, isn't the analogy only correct if the piper was playing the note in a separate room, and people were asked to sing "any note" in the hope of getting the right one? In that case, the odds would be equally stacked against each singer.

PS - the analogy might be improved (IMO) if people were not told there was a piper, but simply inferred the existence of one and then tried to guess the note he was playing.

Originally posted by RonB:

The problem is that not everyone is looking at the same object. That's why they see different colours. If they were looking at the same object as I am, then discussion is possible.

Are there other objects? Again - we may be stretching analogies, but I thought that different colours represented different belief systems in this analogy. Therefore they are looking at the same object, but seeing a different colour.

Originally posted by RonB:

Either I'm right and others are wrong, or they are right and I'm wrong. But it's not a matter of odds. There is only one correct answer.

I understood that the mathematics of statistics represented exactly that: there are multiple potential correct answers, of which only one is true. The odds are the expression of the likelihood of one of many potential eventualities being correct.

The difficulty (as I understand it) is setting the parameters by which the odds may be properly assessed.

Message edited by author 2007-01-19 12:26:02.

01/19/2007 12:24:57 PM · #762

scalvert...

you mis characterize my position on several fronts so I hope to clarify a few points.

1. My latest arguments using heirarchies are not intended to proove the existence of God(s). They are used solely to establish that we in fact view the world through them. Any other discussion alluding to the proof or lack of - of a "higher" power is not part of these latest arguments. Please edit your thoughts in this regard. My point is only, do heirarchies exist? Yes or No? If heirarchies exist (regardless of the criteria for the heirarchy) then something is at the top of that particular heirarchy. The fact that both you and legalbeagle continue to use examples of heirarchies to argue against heirarchies, further illustrates my point that heirarchies do exist. Whether manmade or by devine design, heirarchies exist. If you disagree, then please argue against their existence, not whether they ultimately lead to a Godhead. We will address that argument once we establish that heirarchies exist.

2. Although I enjoyed your post and the many allusions to the unscrupulous religious leaders whose sole motivation is power and greed, I believe that it is true that some examples exist in history. I am not convinced that many other leaders who have dedicated their life work to religious ideals (ie. Sister Theresa, Ghandi, etc.), are guilty of the same sins.

edit to address this post to scalvert

Message edited by author 2007-01-19 12:26:14.

01/19/2007 12:30:05 PM · #763

Originally posted by Flash:

1. My latest arguments using heirarchies are not intended to proove the existence of God(s). They are used solely to establish that we in fact view the world through them.

I don't think that anyone disputes that we are capable of ranking or ordering things in accordance with a set of criteria, creating a hierarchy.

(PS - my eyes are particularly sensitive to mispelling at the moment - I hope that you don't mind me pointing out that it is "hierarchy"!)

Message edited by author 2007-01-19 12:31:05.

01/19/2007 12:37:43 PM · #764

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

(PS - my eyes are particularly sensitive to mispelling at the moment - I hope that you don't mind me pointing out that it is "hierarchy"!)

No problem here. Can you tell I don't use spellcheck? One fault of being an English major - many years ago. I actually think I know stuff ;-}

01/19/2007 12:43:00 PM · #765

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by Flash:
1. My latest arguments using heirarchies are not intended to proove the existence of God(s). They are used solely to establish that we in fact view the world through them.

I don't think that anyone disputes that we are capable of ranking or ordering things in accordance with a set of criteria, creating a hierarchy.

Great. Now if I can get scalvert to agree, then I will move on to my next point.

Louis - I do not mind at all the "nit picking". I do have a fault that I think other people move along their thought process like me, however, your point is well taken. I would not want to reach a conclusion that was based on language skills and not on the logical progression of thought.

01/19/2007 01:49:28 PM · #766

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by RonB:

No, Matthew, LOGIC does NOT *dictate* that. If someone blew a perfect middle 'C' on a pitch pipe and asked 1000 people to sing that note, there is a great likelihood that not many would exercise perfect pitch. But there ARE people who have perfect pitch and COULD sing that note. Pure LOGIC does NOT *dictate* that the entire 1000 has the same chance of hitting the note correctly.

Your example imports a degree of skill to acurately assessing god. Is skill involved?

If you believe that animals acquire "skills", then yes, since many songbirds exhibit perfect pitch. Many would call it a talent. I, myself, prefer to call it a gift from God.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Given the invisibility of the target, isn't the analogy only correct if the piper was playing the note in a separate room, and people were asked to sing "any note" in the hope of getting the right one? In that case, the odds would be equally stacked against each singer.

No. In any religion for which there is/are god(s), he/she/it/they are credited with creating the *natural* world ( rocks, trees, etc. ). Hence, each religious person claims to, in essence, "hear" the piper, as it were, by the evidence of his/her/its/their creation, and amplified by the teachings to which they subcribe.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

PS - the analogy might be improved (IMO) if people were not told there was a piper, but simply inferred the existence of one and then tried to guess the note he was playing.

Ahh, yes. Just covered.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by RonB:
The problem is that not everyone is looking at the same object. That's why they see different colours. If they were looking at the same object as I am, then discussion is possible.

Are there other objects? Again - we may be stretching analogies, but I thought that different colours represented different belief systems in this analogy. Therefore they are looking at the same object, but seeing a different colour.

Some look at the same object but give it different names ( hence the religious denominations ). Some look at different objects but give it the same name ( e.g. both Christians and Jews talk of God, but have different views of who He is ). That's a big part of the problem.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by RonB:
Either I'm right and others are wrong, or they are right and I'm wrong. But it's not a matter of odds. There is only one correct answer.

I understood that the mathematics of statistics represented exactly that: there are multiple potential correct answers, of which only one is true. The odds are the expression of the likelihood of one of many potential eventualities being correct.

Your understanding is correct, but only if all possibilities are possible given that which is known. That is, what you have stated is only true if the original object has not been observed by any of those interpreting its colour. If the object has been observed, then there cannot be multiple potential correct answers, of which only one is true. And, before you ask, yes, I have observed God ( to the same extent that you have observed the wind ).

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

The difficulty (as I understand it) is setting the parameters by which the odds may be properly assessed.

Precisely.

Message edited by author 2007-01-19 14:03:27.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/19/2007 02:01:32 PM · #767

Dupe.

Message edited by author 2007-01-19 14:02:58.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

01/19/2007 02:53:22 PM · #768

Originally posted by RonB:

Dupe.

Dupe of the ruling class? ;-)

R.

01/19/2007 04:29:37 PM · #769

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by RonB:
Dupe.

Dupe of the ruling class? ;-)

R.

Ouch. My fingers got ahead of my brain. I hit the quote button instead of the edit button, and so my edited post became a duplicate post, except it was edited. Then I edited that post to empty it out, but wanted to explain why it was there. But I forgot that left the original post un-edited. So I had to edit the original post after I emptied out the duplicate post. So, yeah. That's me.
By the way, Matthew, I don't know if I've ever mentioned it, but I'm a computer programmer ( been doing it since 1962 with only a break for military service ). So, feel free to challenge my logic at any time - it can only lead to improving my job skills :-) Our saying is "If the documentation and the code disagree, the code is right. It may be wrong, but it's more right than the documentation.

01/22/2007 05:40:13 AM · #770

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Your example imports a degree of skill to acurately assessing god. Is skill involved?

If you believe that animals acquire "skills", then yes, since many songbirds exhibit perfect pitch. Many would call it a talent. I, myself, prefer to call it a gift from God.

I am not asking whether singing involves talent - I am asking if being able to identify the nature of god (as between that of one religion v another) can be assessed by a "skilful" person better than one who is "unskilled" in identifying him. If you say "yes", this seems to contradict the "unknowability" of most gods (ie he is less unknowable to some than others).

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Once again we seem to be coming down to: is the existence of the universe down to

1) some immense, almost infinitely complex being, far more complex than the universe (who happens to correspond to the description of one particular faith of thousands) whose own impossible origins we do not need to explain, but whose presence is invoked by people when something happens without an immediately obvious cause;

or

2) it exists (we accept that we don't know what went before it (if that is a meaningful question)), and the current state of the world is predictable through currently observable processes and an identifiable physical history, and when things happen there is a non-supernatural cause (even if not immediately obvious).

Originally posted by RonB:

I think that the analogy might have run its course: different colours initially represented other religions (I thought), but you are now introducing the concept of different shapes as well as different colours. I cannot reconcile the example with reality: people have belief systems and they are different. According to those religious beliefs, you must be part of *that* faith in order to earn gods favour, not any other. So they are either all different shapes, or all different colours. I cannot see how we could identify one belief system as a different colour, and another as a different shape, and then draw any meaningful conclusions from the nature of the difference.

I think that the difficulty that you may be having is the realisation that we have no idea whether Christianity is any more *right* or *wrong* than Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism, or any other more exotic religion.

Originally posted by RonB:

And, before you ask, yes, I have observed God ( to the same extent that you have observed the wind ).

Hmmm - that would put a very different complexion upon the debate. If you have observed a god, and that god corresponds with the Christian ideal, then certainly, there is little better evidence than that.

I would question whether your observation was really to the same extent as I have observed the wind: I observe it literally and can demonstrate it. I can make predictions based upon my understanding of it, and they can be repeatedly demonstrated to be true. If you had this power, I suspect that you might have mentioned it earlier!

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
The difficulty (as I understand it) is setting the parameters by which the odds may be properly assessed.

Precisely.

My analysis rests on the lack of provable evidence for any religion, and the fact that each is or has been equally convincing (substantially) to its adherents. If you are claiming special knowledge, that would of course alter the odds or make them meaningless.

If you prefer, you might wish to consider the odds of having chosen the "right" religion *before* the revelation by which you came by your special knowledge - as there were many thousands of alternatives from which you chose one, it was a many thousand to one shot that you would choose the "right" religion (and you claim to have special knowledge that you have).

Message edited by author 2007-01-22 05:45:19.

01/29/2007 03:12:08 PM · #771

Hobbits found

Maybe trolls, angels and other entities will be next.

01/30/2007 08:46:17 AM · #772

Hobbits not deformed humans

another article.

same author different link - NOT FOX

Message edited by author 2007-01-30 09:00:39.

01/30/2007 09:35:48 AM · #773

Originally posted by Flash:

Hobbits found

Maybe trolls, angels and other entities will be next.

The same story is reported on the BBC.

This is very interesting. The find once again supports the theory of evolution and demonstrates that we are not quite as special as we like to think (ie there have been in recent history examples of other species of apparently intelligent hominids).

01/30/2007 11:17:55 AM · #774

This fuels the unbelievers as examples of the believers gullibility

Just trying to present both sides. Examples like this demonstrate many of Scalvert's and legalbeagle's earlier points. Believing, in and of itself is not proof. Here we have devout "believers", however some clearly doubt the messanger.