God versus Evolution

[Iacchus]

The following are a couple of posts posted on the Christian Forums thread, Evolution is a Test from God (http://www.christianforums.com/t90452) ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Either God has done nothing (and doesn't exist) or, He is responsible for everything, including the theory of evolution.

Therefore I ask you, is it possible for God to exist and, the theory of evolution to remain valid as well? Originally posted by Vegan Charity

It depends on your concept of God.

A deistic concept of god is compatible with evolution.

Most Christian concepts of God are incompatible with evolution (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/).Originally posted by Iacchus32

Only because it's contingent upon the fall of man. And yet why can't it be as the Bible says, where God essentially culls man out of the (spiritual) garden and transplants him to the natural world of evolutionary change? Indeed, there's evidence to suggest this, beginning with the advent of modern man and the development of agriculture -- hmm ... why agriculture? -- in Asia Minor about 10,000 years ago. Whereas if you look back and ask what is it about man that would demonstrate 10,000 years of evolutionary change, relative to an original pair (Adam and Eve), basically all we have is the difference in the races which, would be about right. Otherwise we're all pretty much alike.

We would also have to ask ourselves where are all the missing links between us and the apes? For there's still quite a vast difference between us and a chimp (our closest relative), so you'd think there'd be at least be a few sub-species between us, which there isn't. Indeed, why is it that the chimps can live in perfect harmony with nature and we can't? ... almost as if we were some kind of evolutionary freak? Just look around at all the devastation we've wrought on the world as a result. Could it be because we weren't meant to be here?Hey, I just thought it would be nice to share. ;)

[epepke]

Well, just empirically, the majority of Christians around the world seem to have no problem with evolution. The Pope has even sponsored conferences on evolutionary biology. Even in the US, the majority of mainstream church-goers seem to have no problem with it. Although Christiandom got their knickers in a twist over evolution a hundred years ago, since the 1950s, at least, there hasn't been much problem except for the recrudescence of fundamentalism, Baptism, and Pentecostalism in the 1970s, a movement which seems now to be expanding also in Britain and Australia.

Consider how non-controversial Fantasia was when it came out. The whole "Rite of Spring" sequence was essentially an elementary-school version of evolution. If that were released today, you'd have Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell calling once again for boycotts of Disney.

[deBergerac]

I agree, most Christians I know have no problem with evolution including myself. And those, so called, Christians who do have a problem usually have a lot of other problems as well.
The whole thing depends of course on how you define evolution and Christianity.

[Marc]

Interesting the attempt to link humans recieving souls from god and the advent of agriculture. Does this mean leafcutter ants have souls?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by epepke

Well, just empirically, the majority of Christians around the world seem to have no problem with evolution. The Pope has even sponsored conferences on evolutionary biology. Even in the US, the majority of mainstream church-goers seem to have no problem with it. Although Christiandom got their knickers in a twist over evolution a hundred years ago, since the 1950s, at least, there hasn't been much problem except for the recrudescence of fundamentalism, Baptism, and Pentecostalism in the 1970s, a movement which seems now to be expanding also in Britain and Australia.

Consider how non-controversial Fantasia was when it came out. The whole "Rite of Spring" sequence was essentially an elementary-school version of evolution. If that were released today, you'd have Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell calling once again for boycotts of Disney. The only problem I have is that evolution addresses the natural world, which is fine but, it doesn't address anything spiritual? ... and in effect promotes materialism, over-consumption, and basically the complete demise of this planet.

Whereas if we understood we were spiritual beings -- i.e., from whence we came and whence we go -- maybe we would be less inclined to become so self-engrossed, and actually give things back to the planet.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Marc
Interesting the attempt to link humans recieving souls from god and the advent of agriculture. Does this mean leafcutter ants have souls? Does this mean ter-mites have microscopic mites on their butts?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The only problem I have is that evolution addresses the natural world, which is fine but, it doesn't address anything spiritual? ... and in effect promotes materialism, over-consumption, and basically the complete demise of this planet.

Whereas if we understood we were spiritual beings -- i.e., from whence we came and whence we go -- maybe we would be less inclined to become so self-engrossed, and actually give things back to the planet.
I see just the opposite effect. People who understand evolution know how species can rise and fall based on how well they fit in with their environment. A lot of "spiritual" people, in contrast, see this life as only transitory, so they don't feel the need to make sure that the planet is taken care of. The worst example of this was James Watt, who was Secretary of the Interior under Reagan. He was a born-again Christian who unabashedly spoke of using all our resources as fast as like because "God is going to call us home soon anyway."

I think materialists understand material balance better than spiritual people. Of course, there are plain old greedy people of every philosophy.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Tricky

I see just the opposite effect. People who understand evolution know how species can rise and fall based on how well they fit in with their environment. A lot of "spiritual" people, in contrast, see this life as only transitory, so they don't feel the need to make sure that the planet is taken care of. The worst example of this was James Watt, who was Secretary of the Interior under Reagan. He was a born-again Christian who unabashedly spoke of using all our resources as fast as like because "God is going to call us home soon anyway."

I think materialists understand material balance better than spiritual people. Of course, there are plain old greedy people of every philosophy.

Exactly. In learning about evolution we also learn about species extinction, how a life form can die out when they are not well suited to their environment. One of many possible causes can be overconsumption, leading to the destruction of natural resources.

Why should a 'spiritual' being be conserned with material things? Why should they have any concern for the material world?

Protecting the environment is a study of nature and the material world, not the spiritual.

[Hutch]

Iacchus wrote: "We would also have to ask ourselves where are all the missing links between us and the apes? For there's still quiet a vast difference between us and a chimp (our closest relative). so you'd think there'd be at least a few subspecies between us, which there isn't."

A couple of notes here. The fossil data indicates that the ape/human breakpoint was about 5-7 million years ago, with the species then developing separately, so the idea of subspecies between us is invalid. There are fossil records for human development from that point, as there is for the great apes.

Also, considering chimps share over 90% of the same DNA as humans (I want to say 96%, but I don't have a reference handy), use basic tools, live in society, and have a rudimentary form of communication, the vast differences are not quite as vast as you think, IMHO.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Iacchus(32)

Either God has done nothing (and doesn't exist) or, He is responsible for everything, including the theory of evolution.
Is God responsible for this? (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040205_2252.html)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

I see just the opposite effect. People who understand evolution know how species can rise and fall based on how well they fit in with their environment. A lot of "spiritual" people, in contrast, see this life as only transitory, so they don't feel the need to make sure that the planet is taken care of. The worst example of this was James Watt, who was Secretary of the Interior under Reagan. He was a born-again Christian who unabashedly spoke of using all our resources as fast as like because "God is going to call us home soon anyway."

I think materialists understand material balance better than spiritual people. Of course, there are plain old greedy people of every philosophy. I hate to tell you this but there are hypocrites on both sides of the fence here. Also, as far as being "fooled-again," I wouldn't put this in the same category as being "spiritual."

Yes, and I have heard any number of materialists say, "So what if we destroy the planet, it's all part of the evolutionary cycle of cause and effect, and it'll just evolve into something else."

So, as I was trying to say, if we understood the nature of our hunger -- that indeed it might be more spiritual -- maybe we wouldn't be so hungry?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dymanic

Is God responsible for this? (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040205_2252.html) Without even looking I would have to say yes.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Marc

Why should a 'spiritual' being be conserned with material things? Why should they have any concern for the material world?Yeah, and why should they be concerned about keeping up with the Jones's?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Without even looking I would have to say yes.
I'd say that quite succinctly sums up the creationist position.

[zenith-nadir]

I think what we are really talking about here is centuries old myth and superstition colliding with facts.

My biggest problem with believing the bible is the earth is never once refered to as a sphere.

Spheres exsisted in everyday life when the bible was written and if the bible is the word of god, and he created heaven and earth, how come god didn't know what the earth was shaped like?

Strange omission for someone who claims to have built the planet.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus

Yes, and I have heard any number of materialists say, "So what if we destroy the planet, it's all part of the evolutionary cycle of cause and effect, and it'll just evolve into something else."
Really?!?!?! If any of these materialists have said this in print, please cite it--I don't mean to doubt, but this is so far from my experience that I am just shocked. After all..."just evolve into something else", first off, is inaccurate, and secondly...still implies extinction of one's own species. I can't see any materialist being satisfied with that!

So, as I was trying to say, if we understood the nature of our hunger -- that indeed it might be more spiritual -- maybe we wouldn't be so hungry? Or if we understand it is physical, and actually work with the physical world to address it, maybe then we wouldn't be so hungry. Two hands working, and all that...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dymanic

I'd say that quite succinctly sums up the creationist position. Or, maybe you're just too lazy to put it in your own words. And by the way I'm not a Creationist.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

I think what we are really talking about here is centuries old myth and superstition colliding with facts.

My biggest problem with believing the bible is the earth is never once refered to as a sphere.

Spheres exsisted in everyday life when the bible was written and if the bible is the word of god, and he created heaven and earth, how come god didn't know what the earth was shaped like?

Strange omission for someone who claims to have built the planet. And then again maybe it just didn't interfere with the proccess of life at that time.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Really?!?!?! If any of these materialists have said this in print, please cite it--I don't mean to doubt, but this is so far from my experience that I am just shocked. After all..."just evolve into something else", first off, is inaccurate, and secondly...still implies extinction of one's own species. I can't see any materialist being satisfied with that![/b]This is based upon discussions I've had on another forum.


Or if we understand it is physical, and actually work with the physical world to address it, maybe then we wouldn't be so hungry. Two hands working, and all that... Yes, but if our stay here is only temporary, and there are no repercussions afterwards, who cares?

[Tricky]

lacchus said
Yes, and I have heard any number of materialists say, "So what if we destroy the planet, it's all part of the evolutionary cycle of cause and effect, and it'll just evolve into something else."

Mercutio said
Really?!?!?! If any of these materialists have said this in print, please cite it--I don't mean to doubt, but this is so far from my experience that I am just shocked. After all..."just evolve into something else", first off, is inaccurate, and secondly...still implies extinction of one's own species. I can't see any materialist being satisfied with that!

I think lacchus must be referring to the straw-man materialists they prop up in his philosophy circles. I certainly have never heard any evolutionist espousing these sentiments. Oh, yeah, there are some fatalistic people everywhere, but I doubt that they are more populous in the materialist camp.

Personally, I'm all in favor of continuation of the species Homo sapiens and I try to adjust my beliefs and lifestyle to promote this.
lacchus said
So, as I was trying to say, if we understood the nature of our hunger -- that indeed it might be more spiritual -- maybe we wouldn't be so hungry?

Mercutio said
Or if we understand it is physical, and actually work with the physical world to address it, maybe then we wouldn't be so hungry. Two hands working, and all that...
And one of those things about the physical world is that it is finite. We need to stop stressing the ecosystem with so many people. I do not see spiritual people addressing this issue. I see some spiritual people (like Catholics) doing everything they can to make the situation worse. I suppose you could say this "feeds the soul," but how is this going to feed the real, viceral hunger that causes so many humans to live in misery?

[Jet Grind]

I certainly care, there are repurcussions during life that I have to worry about. And if this is the only life I have, I certainly don't want to waste it.

[sackett]

Way back in the 1920's, Sam Knight, Sr., one of the best geologists in the U.S., had a prepared lecture for Geology 101 at the University of Wyoming. He summarized the principal geological eras as they were defined in those days, comparing each one with a day in the Book of Genesis. With surprisingly little snipping and tucking, he showed how you could treat historical geology and Genesis together, finding parallels in the evolution of life and the biblical account. He ended the lecture (and put the topic to rest for the remainder of the course) by observing that "the bible says god made the world, but it doesn't say how he did it." It was all neatly done and non-controversial, and I don't see how any christianist or other believer could find fault with it -- unless they wilfully abdicate from common sense, and of course that's just what the fundoids do. Odd, the way these people have lost the elementary skill of using metaphor.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by sackett
Way back in the 1920's, Sam Knight, Sr., one of the best geologists in the U.S., had a prepared lecture for Geology 101 at the University of Wyoming. He summarized the principal geological eras as they were defined in those days, comparing each one with a day in the Book of Genesis. With surprisingly little snipping and tucking, he showed how you could treat historical geology and Genesis together, finding parallels in the evolution of life and the biblical account. He ended the lecture (and put the topic to rest for the remainder of the course) by observing that "the bible says god made the world, but it doesn't say how he did it." It was all neatly done and non-controversial, and I don't see how any christianist or other believer could find fault with it -- unless they wilfully abdicate from common sense, and of course that's just what the fundoids do. Odd, the way these people have lost the elementary skill of using metaphor.
I'm sure that was done to be palatable to the beginners in geology. My geology 101 professor basically said that learning the history of the earth should not damage anyone's faith. But even in the 1920s, there is simply no way that the biblical creation stories in Genesis (there are two) can truly be reconciled with actual earth history. The obvious problem is that they got the order all wrong. Still, I support anything which opens a peephole in a closed mind so that some knowledge may seep in.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Iacchus

Or, maybe you're just too lazy to put it in your own words.
This from someone who obviously hasn't made the effort to learn even the most rudimentary principles of evolutionary theory. If you really wanted answers to your questions (or even if you only wanted to hold up your end of an intelligent debate on the topic) wouldn't that be a reasonable first step?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
This is based upon discussions I've had on another forum.
anything you could link? I'd like to see whether the person is credible, or as Tricky suggests, a straw figure.

Yes, but if our stay here is only temporary, and there are no repercussions afterwards, who cares? Why is it only non-materialists claim this as the materialist view? Who cares? Hmmm...you're right, now that I think about it. Since I'll be dead, I have no reason to care whether my children survive and prosper....what do I care about grandchildren? Friends? pah! I'll be dead, I don't need to care about them!

As both Tricky and Jet Grind said, just above...we only get one world. We really have to take care of it.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

anything you could link? I'd like to see whether the person is credible, or as Tricky suggests, a straw figure.Somewhere on this thread I believe, A Flaw in the Theory of Natural Selection? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4758) ...

If it's not there I'll have to take a look later ...


Why is it only non-materialists claim this as the materialist view? Who cares? Hmmm...you're right, now that I think about it. Since I'll be dead, I have no reason to care whether my children survive and prosper....what do I care about grandchildren? Friends? pah! I'll be dead, I don't need to care about them!Yes, why should people care in spite of all of this? It's almost like it's built in. Yet why should it be?


As both Tricky and Jet Grind said, just above...we only get one world. We really have to take care of it. The fact of the matter is we aren't.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dymanic

This from someone who obviously hasn't made the effort to learn even the most rudimentary principles of evolutionary theory. If you really wanted answers to your questions (or even if you only wanted to hold up your end of an intelligent debate on the topic) wouldn't that be a reasonable first step? And yet the only distinction that I really have to make is that we don't belong here.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

I think lacchus must be referring to the straw-man materialists they prop up in his philosophy circles. I certainly have never heard any evolutionist espousing these sentiments. Oh, yeah, there are some fatalistic people everywhere, but I doubt that they are more populous in the materialist camp. Yet the whole thing sounds very plausible if, in fact I was a materialist.


Personally, I'm all in favor of continuation of the species Homo sapiens and I try to adjust my beliefs and lifestyle to promote this.Feelings? You actually have feelings over the matter?


And one of those things about the physical world is that it is finite. We need to stop stressing the ecosystem with so many people. I do not see spiritual people addressing this issue. I see some spiritual people (like Catholics) doing everything they can to make the situation worse. I suppose you could say this "feeds the soul," but how is this going to feed the real, viceral hunger that causes so many humans to live in misery? And I see rampant consumerism all over the place.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Jet Grind

I certainly care, there are repurcussions during life that I have to worry about. And if this is the only life I have, I certainly don't want to waste it. Why all the sappy sentimentalism? When you're dead your dead. Or, maybe you were never alive in the first place?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Somewhere on this thread I believe, A Flaw in the Theory of Natural Selection? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4758) ...

If it's not there I'll have to take a look later ...
Well, I won't deny there are selfish idiots in every camp, including evolutionists. I don't think many of them are here on these boards.
Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, why should people care in spite of all of this? It's almost like it's built in. Yet why should it be?
Because evolution selects for creatures that protect their kind. It should be very obvious that things which protect their kind will continue, so yes, caring is hardwired into us by evolution.

Originally posted by Iacchus
The fact of the matter is we aren't.
And the fact of the matter is that the world has a whole lot more spiritual people than non-spiritual people. I think they deserve the lion's share of the blame for what we are doing to our earth.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yet the whole thing sounds very plausible if, in fact I was a materialist.
Sadly, though, you are not empathic with materialists. You cannot say what you would do "if you were a materialist" because you do not seem to know how materialists feel.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Feelings? You actually have feelings over the matter?
LOL. Certainly your conception of materialists is not that they are emotionless zombies? :eek: I hope your comment was tongue-in-cheek, but I didn't see any smilies.

Originally posted by Iacchus
And I see rampant consumerism all over the place.
And you attribute that all to materialists? Have you noticed any rich spiritual people? Turn on any religious television channel to see how many spiritual people engage in rampant consumerism.

[gentlehorse]

Originally posted by Tricky
LOL. Certainly your conception of materialists is not that they are emotionless zombies? :eek:

Of course you are, zombieboy.

Turn on any religious television channel to see how many spiritual people engage in rampant consumerism.

No true spiritual people engage in rampant consumerism.

*runs away*








Sorry. I don't know what came over me. I couldn't help myself. Sometimes I just have to indulge.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Marc
Interesting the attempt to link humans recieving souls from god and the advent of agriculture. Does this mean leafcutter ants have souls?

Yes, yes they do. As much of a soul as you or I or anyone or thing else has.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The only problem I have is that evolution addresses the natural world, which is fine but, it doesn't address anything spiritual? ... and in effect promotes materialism, over-consumption, and basically the complete demise of this planet.

Whereas if we understood we were spiritual beings -- i.e., from whence we came and whence we go -- maybe we would be less inclined to become so self-engrossed, and actually give things back to the planet.

No it doesn't. Evolution is a process and nothing more. Anything else you put into it is your own bias. Actually from my veiw point, understanding evolution allows us to understand how the world works and gives us better tools to learn to not step on the toes of other species and the environment.

I think your argument is interesting since the whole concept of a soul is something that was invented just so humans could consider themselves better than the rest of the world, and has been used many times since its inception as a reason to abuse and take advantage of animals and plant life. The whole idea, "God made this all for us...." Blah!

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by lacchus
Why all the sappy sentimentalism?

I will use your own words to answer this question

When you're dead your dead.

That's why.

Originally posted by lacchus
Or, maybe you were never alive in the first place?

I have no idea what this means.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Iacchus
This is based upon discussions I've had on another forum.


Yes, but if our stay here is only temporary, and there are no repercussions afterwards, who cares?

This is one of the most bogus things religious people have come up with to date: Oh, you have no morals without god. It is absurd.

Abuse of the planet happens through ignorance and selfishness, both of which are fostered in the chrisitan dogma. Me, me, me. "I do good because I want god to give me a reward. I don't learn because god wants me to have faith. Oh, what would god think?" Instead, think of what is right. What is proper. What is the best for everyone involved including the future generations of this planet. Do good because it is the right thing to do to help others and the planet. Do the right thing because it is the best thing for no other alturistic reasons than just because it is the right thing to care for our planet, for ourselves and for the other species that inhabit this planet.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The only problem I have is that evolution addresses the natural world, which is fine but, it doesn't address anything spiritual? ... and in effect promotes materialism, over-consumption, and basically the complete demise of this planet.

By that logic, Campbell's Condensed Soup doesn't address anything spiritual, and in effect, promotes materialism, over-consumption, and basically the complete demise of this planet.

Automobile timing lights also don't address anything spiritual, and in effect, promote materialism, over-consumption, and basically the complete demise of this planet.

Greibach Normal Form for context-free grammars doesn't address anything spiritual, and in effect, promotes materialism, over-consumption, and basically the complete demise of this planet.

The color of white paper doesn't address anything spiritual, and in effect, promotes materialism, over-consumption, and basically the complete demise of this planet.

The list goes on and on.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Chanileslie

This is one of the most bogus things religious people have come up with to date: Oh, you have no morals without god. It is absurd. And yet that would also coincide with the fact that He exists now wouldn't it?


Abuse of the planet happens through ignorance and selfishness, both of which are fostered in the chrisitan dogma. Me, me, me. "I do good because I want god to give me a reward. I don't learn because god wants me to have faith. Oh, what would god think?" Instead, think of what is right. What is proper. What is the best for everyone involved including the future generations of this planet. Do good because it is the right thing to do to help others and the planet. Do the right thing because it is the best thing for no other alturistic reasons than just because it is the right thing to care for our planet, for ourselves and for the other species that inhabit this planet. Like I said, if our stay here is only temporary, and there are no repercussions afterwards, who cares?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by epepke

By that logic, Campbell's Condensed Soup doesn't address anything spiritual, and in effect, promotes materialism, over-consumption, and basically the complete demise of this planet.

Automobile timing lights also don't address anything spiritual, and in effect, promote materialism, over-consumption, and basically the complete demise of this planet.

Greibach Normal Form for context-free grammars doesn't address anything spiritual, and in effect, promotes materialism, over-consumption, and basically the complete demise of this planet.

The color of white paper doesn't address anything spiritual, and in effect, promotes materialism, over-consumption, and basically the complete demise of this planet.

The list goes on and on. Yes, all this stuff is artificial and man-made, and ultimately will. You betcha!

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet that would also coincide with the fact that He exists now wouldn't it?

The fact that you are allowed to post such completely irrelevant answers without repercussion, is by itself a proof that God doesn't exist.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet that would also coincide with the fact that He exists now wouldn't it?
I think you mean a "belief", not a fact. Facts have evidence.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Like I said, if our stay here is only temporary, and there are no repercussions afterwards, who cares?
This is what scares me about spiritual people. It is obvious that the only thing restraining them from being homocidal maniacs is their fear of repurcussions. Atheists, on the other hand, behave morally because of empathy for their fellow human beings. Which one of these would you trust more?

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet that would also coincide with the fact that He exists now wouldn't it?Why would it? He exists, therefore even non-believers have morals?

Here's the alternative:
He doesn't exist, and that is why a lot of religious people are able to comit atrocities in his name.

Like I said, if our stay here is only temporary, and there are no repercussions afterwards, who cares?I care. And so do a lot of others.

Do you mean to say that you are such a heartless, selfish b*st*rd that you have no intention of leaving the place behind for your kids the way you originally found it yourself? Do you want them to suffer from pollution, disease and famine just because you have the power to do that?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

Well, I won't deny there are selfish idiots in every camp, including evolutionists. I don't think many of them are here on these boards. I don't know?


Because evolution selects for creatures that protect their kind. It should be very obvious that things which protect their kind will continue, so yes, caring is hardwired into us by evolution.But not all species do this though. A lot of them would just assume kill their young and not give it a second glance. And of course if animals had "morals" in the first place, maybe they wouldn't prey upon other animals in the second place? So you obviously can't say this.


And the fact of the matter is that the world has a whole lot more spiritual people than non-spiritual people. I think they deserve the lion's share of the blame for what we are doing to our earth. Yes, but how would they be allowed to further any of this without materialistic means?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

I think you mean a "belief", not a fact. Facts have evidence.Basically what I was suggesting was how could I possibily say such a thing if He didn't exist ... in that Atheists couldn't have morals without God. Make any more sense? Nevermind ...


This is what scares me about spiritual people. It is obvious that the only thing restraining them from being homocidal maniacs is their fear of repurcussions. Atheists, on the other hand, behave morally because of empathy for their fellow human beings. Which one of these would you trust more? On the contrary, I think Atheists are just as much afraid of the repurcussions as anyone else, for instance like going to jail? ;)

Or, perhaps you're making the assumption that all Atheits think like you?

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet that would also coincide with the fact that He exists now wouldn't it?

Or Bubba the Big Blue Sperm Whale of Reality exists.


Originally posted by Iacchus
Like I said, if our stay here is only temporary, and there are no repercussions afterwards, who cares?

I believe I have already answered this.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Chanileslie

No it doesn't. Evolution is a process and nothing more. Anything else you put into it is your own bias. Actually from my veiw point, understanding evolution allows us to understand how the world works and gives us better tools to learn to not step on the toes of other species and the environment. Yes, as a process evolution addresses the natural world, nothing more.


I think your argument is interesting since the whole concept of a soul is something that was invented just so humans could consider themselves better than the rest of the world, and has been used many times since its inception as a reason to abuse and take advantage of animals and plant life. The whole idea, "God made this all for us...." Blah! We either have a soul or we don't. And if we do, how do you think it got there?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Chanileslie

Or Bubba the Big Blue Sperm Whale of Reality exists. Hey, maybe that's where God's hanging out these days? ;)

[Yahweh]

From Iaachus's opening post:
Only because it's contingent upon the fall of man. And yet why can't it be as the Bible says, where God essentially culls man out of the (spiritual) garden and transplants him to the natural world of evolutionary change?
The information written in the bible is inconsistent with our fossil record. From what you suggest, this would be as if man just popped onto the planet.

However, we know this is not the case, there are quite a long line human-like animals which came before humans. They form a smooth gradient between non-human to neo-human to human to modern human animal.

Indeed, there's evidence to suggest this, beginning with the advent of modern man and the development of agriculture -- hmm ... why agriculture? -- in Asia Minor about 10,000 years ago.
Good, this is an excellent example of evolution. This is not the type of evolution which occurs on the genetic level, instead it is the type of evolution which occurs at the social level (Note: Social Darwinism and Evolution are entirely unrelated). One social activity is highly beneficial, this ensures that animals who practice this activity will have a tendency to live healthier lives than those who do not practice this activity.

Being a social evolutionary advantage, there is no need to reproduce for this activity to spread. Other groups of caught on to this idea.

And this is not an unheard of phenomena in the animal kingdom. This is simply "learn as your grow". Do you think monkeys know that they should take a stick (a tool), shove it into an ant burrow to gather ants at birth? Of course not, this is a learned behavior. Most likely , this behavior was an accident from which one monkey discovered, and other monkeys copied.

Another example: Otters like to eat shellfish. One of the things they do is use a rock to smash open the shellfish with. Of course, this is also a learned behavior, all those adorably cute little baby otters struggle to crack the shell with their teeth. (Birds have been known to kill prey by throwing small rocks at them.)

By the way, the domestication of animals and the wonderful new creation called agriculture arrived long after the advent of anatomically modern humans (http://membres.lycos.fr/xbeluga/originsofagriculture.html).

The thing that is so special about agriculture is that it changed humans dietary habits. That surplus of food is what gave rise to civilization. Agriculture is just another advancement of the human species, it is fully consistant with evolution, it is rather unrelated to your suggestion.

Whereas if you look back and ask what is it about man that would demonstrate 10,000 years of evolutionary change, relative to an original pair (Adam and Eve), basically all we have is the difference in the races which, would be about right. Otherwise we're all pretty much alike.
Yes, we are all pretty much alike. My DNA is virtually (but not 100%) identical to your DNA.

However, it was not always like this. One theory, which is not entirely substantiated, of evolutionary history (note: History, not mechanism) says there was a very wide spectrum of genetic difference between humans across the globe. However, there was a genetic bottleneck which occurred ~71,000 years ago. This is what the bottleneck did:

1 - Some species of human
2 - Another species of human
3 - The humans you are familiar with today
4 - Yet another species of human
5 - Still yet another species of human

* represents an extinction

1 2 3 4 5
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
* | | * | }
| | * } 70,000 to 74,000 years ago
* | }
|
|
|
\./ } 0 years ago (Today)


The modern humans of today survived a global catastrophy. I would guess the reason why we survived is "luck".

We would also have to ask ourselves where are all the missing links between us and the apes? For there's still quite a vast difference between us and a chimp (our closest relative), so you'd think there'd be at least be a few sub-species between us, which there isn't.
Apparently you've never done your outside reading.

There are dozens of intermediate species.

From Human Species Timeline (http://library.thinkquest.org/27885/primates_1.htm):

http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/images/timeline.jpg

From this image you can see that Homo Habilis is our ancestor, whereas Australopithicus robustus is not.

Australopithicus africanus is an ancestor of both though.

Then neanderthals branched off of 'homo sapiens', but are not our ancestors...only the homo sapiens are our ancestors.

The neanderthals survived the ice age well with their small size and hardiness, but when the homo sapiens started to take over Europe after it warmed up, the neanderthals die off.

...

A. afarensis is classified as an ape, not a human. It is a Hominid--that is, an ape closely related to human beings. In terms of overall body size, brain size and skull shape, "Lucy" resembles a chimpanzee. However, A. afarensis has some surprisingly human characteristics. For example, the way the hip joint and pelvis articulate indicates that "Lucy" walked upright like a human, not like a chimp (far left). This means that upright posture and bi-pedalism preceded the development of what we would recognize as human beings and human intelligence. At near left is a reconstruction of Lucy's full skeleton.

Until 1994, A. afarensis was the earliest Hominid species yet discovered.

That is a very short introduction to the evolution of humans, but its good enough to get you started.


(There are about 4 or 5 "evidences against evolution" that you should never use. This includes "2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution", "If humans came from monkeys, why are their still monkeys", "some systems are irreducibly complex", "the dust on the moon is too thin", and "there are no transitional fossils". You used the "no transitional fossils" argument, I can only assume you've never done any outside reading.)

Indeed, why is it that the chimps can live in perfect harmony with nature and we can't? ... almost as if we were some kind of evolutionary freak? Just look around at all the devastation we've wrought on the world as a result. Could it be because we weren't meant to be here?
See my reply here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870303640&highlight=evolution#post1870303640).

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I don't know?You've made a big step, itchy. Now, apply it to your arguments.
But not all species do this though. A lot of them would just assume kill their young and not give it a second glance. And of course if animals had "morals" in the first place, maybe they wouldn't prey upon other animals in the second place? So you obviously can't say this.Um... Animals kill either to eat or to avoid being eaten. There are a few trippy cases, but those species can procreate enough to survive it.
Yes, but how would they be allowed to further any of this without materialistic means? Huh?

Are you telling me that materialism is still at fault if spiritualists start thinking a little like them.

How about proof, or at least evidence. Put up or shut up.

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Basically what I was suggesting was how could I possibily say such a thing if He didn't exist ... in that Atheists couldn't have morals without God. Make any more sense? Nevermind ...


On the contrary, I think Atheists are just as much afraid of the repurcussions as anyone else, for instance like going to jail? ;)

Or, perhaps you're making the assumption that all Atheits think like you? Read up on social contract theory before continuing the BS-go-round, would ya?

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, as a process evolution addresses the natural world, nothing more.

The natural world is all we got.


Originally posted by Iacchus
We either have a soul or we don't. And if we do, how do you think it got there?

We don't have a soul.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But not all species do this though. A lot of them would just assume kill their young and not give it a second glance. And of course if animals had "morals" in the first place, maybe they wouldn't prey upon other animals in the second place? So you obviously can't say this.

I thought we were talking about humans here? Are you sure you want to debate the morality of wombats?

Our morals have evolved (if I may use that word ;)) from the pressure to succeed as a species, i.e., to preserve our genes. Since humans normally have few children relative to other species, survival depends on keeping those children alive. It would be bad for our species to engage in wholesale slaughter of each other.

But nature has many survival strategies. Some animals have many thousands of offspring, but engage in mass infantacide. A few (the strongest) will survive.

One thing that humans have that few if any other species have, is the ability to think far into the future. It is this ability that allows us to plan for hard times. But this ability is still underused. Many humans still engage in short-sighted behavior that, if examined, will ultimately harm the species. Polluting our habitat is one such behavior. Hopefully we will learn better as we discover more about how we interact with our environment.
Originally posted by Iacchus

Yes, but how would they be allowed to further any of this without materialistic means?
LOL. How would you eat without materialistic means? That "soul food" is notoriously short on nutrition. If we wish to live at all we must interact with the material world. I'm betting you do it too. I'm even betting you own some nice things (like a computer). Does that make you one of those filthy materialists?
Originally posted by Iacchus
Basically what I was suggesting was how could I possibily say such a thing if He didn't exist ... in that Atheists couldn't have morals without God. Make any more sense?

Nope. I think your cognitive dissonance is kicking in.
Originally posted by Iacchus
On the contrary, I think Atheists are just as much afraid of the repurcussions as anyone else, for instance like going to jail?

I admit that laws are necessary to try to prevent humans from damaging each other. However, polls have shown that there are far fewer atheists in prison than "spiritual" people, even adjusted for relative percentage in the community. If you are trying to prove that materialists/atheists are by nature more immoral than spiritual people, you have not come close to doing so.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Or, perhaps you're making the assumption that all atheists think like you?

Of course not. I have said, more than once, that each camp has some right bastards in it. What I contest is your suggestion that atheists/materialists have a disproportionately high number of them.
Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, as a process evolution addresses the natural world, nothing more.
Nor does it attempt to address more. Evolution is science. Things that address the supernatural world are generally termed, "religions".

Yet even though evolution "addresses the natural world, nothing more," it has provided many more useful things for mankind in the short time it has been discovered than spirituality has done in the many thousands of years that it has existed.
Originally posted by Iacchus
We either have a soul or we don't. And if we do, how do you think it got there?

Another incorrect statement.
If soul means "consciousness," then I agree (mostly).
If soul means "something that survives after death," then I disagree.
There are many definitions of "soul". What is yours?

But if we have one, it got there through evolution, just like everything else.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, maybe that's where God's hanging out these days? ;)

It is possible since neither exists outside of imagination. :p

[Riddick]

Originally posted by Marc
Interesting the attempt to link humans recieving souls from god and the advent of agriculture. Does this mean leafcutter ants have souls?
christians believe that man was created in God's image, molded after him, and that man was created above all of the other animals and to have dominion over them

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Riddick

christians believe that man was created in God's image, molded after him, and that man was created above all of the other animals and to have dominion over them
Some Christians believe that, but by no means all. Many modern Christians regard the Old Testament as a book of parables.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Chanileslie

It is possible since neither exists outside of imagination. :p So what is the imagination then? Basically what exists inside of your brain? If not, then how do you know your brain's not deceiving you? If so, then how do you know that anything is real? In other words, how do you know that everything is not just a by-product of your imagination?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by DarkMagician

Read up on social contract theory before continuing the BS-go-round, would ya? And yet why are our prisons so brim full of inmates? Are you saying these are only religious people which have been incarcerated?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

I think you mean a "belief", not a fact. Facts have evidence.There's evidence that I'm sitting in my chair right now, except you couldn't prove it. :D

But it sure as hell is a plausible idea now don't you think?


This is what scares me about spiritual people. It is obvious that the only thing restraining them from being homocidal maniacs is their fear of repurcussions. Atheists, on the other hand, behave morally because of empathy for their fellow human beings. Which one of these would you trust more? You really should be careful about the labels that you put on people. Their spirits might actually come back to haunt you. :D

But who's going to believe you when you say you saw a ghost? Too bad!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by DarkMagician

Huh?

Are you telling me that materialism is still at fault if spiritualists start thinking a little like them.Okay, define spiritual, because I'm sure your idea of spiritualism is not the same as mine. Are you referring to those people who call themselves Christians and go to church on Sundays? ... Who, tend only to exhibit what is spiritual in the "outward sense?"


How about proof, or at least evidence. Put up or shut up.And like it or not we're all stuck on this planet and have to deal with the ramifications of materialism.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
There's evidence that I'm sitting in my chair right now, except you couldn't prove it. :D

But it sure as hell is a plausible idea now don't you think?

But it is potentially provable. If you provided me evidence, (like a picture, some ID etc.) I would probably believe you. Also, I have lots of empirical evidence that most people sit in chairs when they work at their computer.

Showing me God's ID is going to be a bit harder. And I have no empiracle evidence of one.

Originally posted by Iacchus
You really should be careful about the labels that you put on people. Their spirits might actually come back to haunt you. :D
Yes. I shall dedicate one nanosecond of my life to worrying about vengeful spirits. It's not worth any more. ;)

But as for labels, the "spiritual people are only constrained homocidal maniacs" comment was a bit of hyperbole in response to the suggestion that non-spiritual people would be immoral because they have no "retribution" to worry about. Both are ludicrous propositions.

Originally posted by Iacchus
But who's going to believe you when you say you saw a ghost?
Only every woo-woo in the world. :p

[Jim Lennox]

Top postings Tricky, Yahweh, et al. You have the patience of saints.

Iacchus you are one fruity motherf*cker.

Of course he won't be coming back to this thread.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Does this mean ter-mites have microscopic mites on their butts?

Probably some for of organism living on them, possible mites, what is your point?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox
Top postings Tricky, Yahweh, et al. You have the patience of saints.
Thank you sir. How odd for an atheist being compared to a saint. :D

Originally posted by Jim Lennox
Of course he won't be coming back to this thread.
I disagree. And I would be sad to see him go. It is exactly this sort of question that needs to be hashed out to let people see how well the theory of evolution fits the evidence and how poorly religious/spiritual explanations do. It may require a bit of verbal jousting, but hey! That's why I'm here!

And it is not a waste of time. We have had a number of people come to embrace skepticism from the discussions on these boards. I still hold out hope for lacchus.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Tricky
I still hold out hope for lacchus.

Not me. And I sure hope I'm wrong.

[Igopogo]

In my experience, I've noticed zero difference in attitude towards the natural world between (human-myth-centred) religious people & (human-ego-centred) science followers. I've had just as many debates with members of each group who advocate an 'anything goes' policy of man's relationship to the natural world in varying degrees.

Both these groups, I would argue, carry a view of the universe that is predominately self-centred. The labels of religion and science are irrelevant. ‘No-true-scientist’ and ‘no-true-spiritualist’ would put man at the centre of their view of the universe, (and no, these two groups are not opposites of each other, though I often read on this site the basic assumption that they are).

Self-centred-ness is an expected default position for any creature who comes into the world the way we do. We’re born, starting with virtually nothing. We are reliant only on our sensory perception from a very limited place in space and time to form our views of the universe. When we come into this world, we are the centre of the universe as far as we know. It takes much research, discovery, and thought to move the centre of the universe away from one’s self. The process is painful, and different people push the centre to different places and distances.

Since we all start out self-centred, and there are many factors that dictate how far from this default starting position we go, it’s no surprise to find a wide range of degree in self-centred-ness form all walks of life.

This has brought me to the conclusion that it's one’s level of self-assuredness and arrogance of what they perceive that leads one to their attitudes on the environment, not whether their views are based in “science” or “spirituallity”.

[max]

Dymanic
The photo of the baby with two heads is quite shocking. If God exists he wouldn't be responsible for the deformity, he would only be responsible for the soul. Nature is at fault in creating a second head when only one is needed.

If we all believe in evolution I wonder if the dying state of the planet has been caused because we intervene the whole time. If evolution truly means the survival of the fiittest, we have not kept to that theory in that we assist the poorer countries. Going by Darwins law, we should be looking after our own needs and sod the weakest. Throughout the centuries had we kept to that law I suspect there would be no africans and many other third world people would have become extinct. If we'd have all stayed in our own country from the beginning, I wonder which would still be populated today? Which would have been killed off by disease and poverty.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Igopogo

In my experience, I've noticed zero difference in attitude towards the natural world between (human-myth-centred) religious people & (human-ego-centred) science followers. I've had just as many debates with members of each group who advocate an 'anything goes' policy of man's relationship to the natural world in varying degrees.
Just to clarify, are you saying that your conclusion is that it is the position of modern science as a whole that we humans are the center of the universe, that anything goes with regard to our policies regarding our relationship to the natural world, and that we just about have everything figured out?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox

Top postings Tricky, Yahweh, et al. You have the patience of saints.

Iacchus you are one fruity motherf*cker.

Of course he won't be coming back to this thread. No, I can assure you, I wouldn't even touch your mother. :p

[Igopogo]

Originally posted by Dymanic

Just to clarify, are you saying that your conclusion is that it is the position of modern science as a whole that we humans are the center of the universe, that anything goes with regard to our policies regarding our relationship to the natural world, and that we just about have everything figured out?

It all depends on how you define what you mean by "modern science". My idea of what science really is bears little resemblance to what is often touted as such.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Igopogo
In my experience, I've noticed zero difference in attitude towards the natural world between (human-myth-centred) religious people & (human-ego-centred) science followers. I've had just as many debates with members of each group who advocate an 'anything goes' policy of man's relationship to the natural world in varying degrees.

Both these groups, I would argue, carry a view of the universe that is predominately self-centred. The labels of religion and science are irrelevant. ‘No-true-scientist’ and ‘no-true-spiritualist’ would put man at the centre of their view of the universe, (and no, these two groups are not opposites of each other, though I often read on this site the basic assumption that they are).

Self-centred-ness is an expected default position for any creature who comes into the world the way we do. We’re born, starting with virtually nothing. We are reliant only on our sensory perception from a very limited place in space and time to form our views of the universe. When we come into this world, we are the centre of the universe as far as we know. It takes much research, discovery, and thought to move the centre of the universe away from one’s self. The process is painful, and different people push the centre to different places and distances.

Since we all start out self-centred, and there are many factors that dictate how far from this default starting position we go, it’s no surprise to find a wide range of degree in self-centred-ness form all walks of life.

This has brought me to the conclusion that it's one’s level of self-assuredness and arrogance of what they perceive that leads one to their attitudes on the environment, not whether their views are based in “science” or “spirituallity”. So what's your point? ... Ripples occur over the face of the lake?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

Probably some for of organism living on them, possible mites, what is your point? Yeah, what is the point? ... Exactly!

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by max

If we all believe in evolution I wonder if the dying state of the planet has been caused because we intervene the whole time.
The planet is dying?

If evolution truly means the survival of the fiittest,

It doesn't.
we have not kept to that theory in that we assist the poorer countries.
On close examination, such assistance usually has ulterior motives, but I do agree that humans often practice altruism that appears to go beyond what is easily explained as ultimately selfish altruism under Darwinism.
Going by Darwins law, we should be looking after our own needs and sod the weakest.
I think it is fairly safe to say that that is by far the most popular policy. (It wasn't actually Darwin who coined the term 'Survival of the fittest, btw, it was the philosopher, Herbert Spencer.)
Throughout the centuries had we kept to that law I suspect there would be no africans and many other third world people would have become extinct.
Througout the centuries, many peoples have indeed ceased to exist as distinct groups. Many have been killed off by disease and poverty, and many others have been deliberately exterminated by their enemies.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by max

My idea of what science really is bears little resemblance to what is often touted as such.
If what you are saying then is that so-called scientific claims are often used, by those with a limited understanding of the actual science, to support personal, emotional, or political agendas, then I agree completely. I would even go so far as to say that even those do have a thorough grasp of the science (being humans, after all) cannot reasonably be expected to be entirely free of any such agendas at all times. But at least the entire endeavor does not have these agendas as its first priority -- something that cannot be said of religious endeavors.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

But it is potentially provable. If you provided me evidence, (like a picture, some ID etc.) I would probably believe you. Also, I have lots of empirical evidence that most people sit in chairs when they work at their computer. Yeah, but you've got to find me first! ;)


Showing me God's ID is going to be a bit harder. And I have no empiracle evidence of one.And what if He just happened to sit down in the chair beside you? :D


Yes. I shall dedicate one nanosecond of my life to worrying about vengeful spirits. It's not worth any more. ;)Well it's all about trama you see, and getting you upset, and by that time the spirit has gottcha! Any good Voodoo expert will tell you that. This is why people who are disturbed -- upset, tramatized, emotionally unstable -- tend to hear voices.


But as for labels, the "spiritual people are only constrained homocidal maniacs" comment was a bit of hyperbole in response to the suggestion that non-spiritual people would be immoral because they have no "retribution" to worry about. Both are ludicrous propositions.All I can tell you is that if you keep pressing the buttons, sooner or later you're going to set off something that you wish you hadn't. ;)


Only every woo-woo in the world. :p As if that's what it was all about? ... Guess again!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by El Greco

Not me. And I sure hope I'm wrong. Does it matter? Maybe Iacchus can look after himself just fine, thanks!

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So what is the imagination then? Basically what exists inside of your brain? If not, then how do you know your brain's not deceiving you? If so, then how do you know that anything is real? In other words, how do you know that everything is not just a by-product of your imagination?



Imagination, things that we make up. Reality, what refused to go away simply because I stop believing in it.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by max

If we all believe in evolution I wonder if the dying state of the planet has been caused because we intervene the whole time. If evolution truly means the survival of the fiittest, we have not kept to that theory in that we assist the poorer countries. Going by Darwins law, we should be looking after our own needs and sod the weakest. Throughout the centuries had we kept to that law I suspect there would be no africans and many other third world people would have become extinct. If we'd have all stayed in our own country from the beginning, I wonder which would still be populated today? Which would have been killed off by disease and poverty.Yes, and instead we coddle the weakness don't we?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Chanileslie

Imagination, things that we make up. Reality, what refused to go away simply because I stop believing in it. Yes, but how do you know that I'm not imaginary and you just didn't make me up? The imagination can be a very powerful thing, especially when people start hearing voices and what not -- that won't go away!

[johnny]

Originally posted by max
If evolution truly means the survival of the fiittest, we have not kept to that theory in that we assist the poorer countries. Going by Darwins law, we should be looking after our own needs and sod the weakest.

The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about how we "should" behave; it is not a normative theory. The theory of evolution describes a mechanism to explain the observed state of the world, but does not prescribe behavior.

Even if I read your post to mean "I would expect to see us looking after our own needs and sod the weakest," I don't think you're giving evolutionary theory enough credit. I don't think it's as simple as you suggest.

[Igopogo]

Originally posted by Dymanic
[B

If what you are saying then is that so-called scientific claims are often used, by those with a limited understanding of the actual science, to support personal, emotional, or political agendas, then I agree completely. I would even go so far as to say that even those do have a thorough grasp of the science (being humans, after all) cannot reasonably be expected to be entirely free of any such agendas at all times.

Yes, I agree so far. Very well put.

But at least the entire endeavor does not have these agendas as its first priority -- something that cannot be said of religious endeavors.

This part I don't agree with, it sounds like a biased assumption to me. As I can't lump all 'science' under the banner of human-centricity, I can't lump all 'religion' either.

[/B]

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

From Iaachus's opening post:

The information written in the bible is inconsistent with our fossil record. From what you suggest, this would be as if man just popped onto the planet.Yes, and according to the Bible this is what it suggests. Does it make any less sense to say The Gardner, say someone like Luther Burbank, transplanted one of His favorite plants/hybrids from the garden and out into the field?

Of course it's all contingent upon whether a Master Gardner truly exists or not, but if He does, then it's entirely possible.


However, we know this is not the case, there are quite a long line human-like animals which came before humans. They form a smooth gradient between non-human to neo-human to human to modern human animal.I wouldn't be too sure of that either. It's understandable that such a lineage should be recognizable and set in place, and exhibit some sense of compatibility, otherwise how could a successful transplant possibly occur? ...


While here's another quote from the Christian Forums thread, Evolution is a Test from God (http://www.christianforums.com/t90452) ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

We have fossil records of "something" which, no longer exist. However, if evolution "aspired" towards that which created it, i.e., God -- as compared to the one constant, the sun -- then wouldn't it make sense that it should ultimately replicate itself in the image of its creator? In which case maybe these fossils may or may not be related but, it wouldn't be the least bit out of line with man being created in God's image. Besides, God couldn't just transplant mankind into an environment that wasn't "designed" to suit him ... as all these other things had to exist first.Can't you see that there's two forces at play here: the constancy of the sun -- which, is most like God -- and the evolutionary forces which exist on the planet? Whereas at some point, if God truly does exist, then there must be some place where the spiritual meets the natural, and this I would suggest to you is man.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Iacchus


It's understandable that such a lineage should be recognizable and set in place, and exhibit some sense of compatibility, otherwise how could a successful transplant possibly occur?
Grammar can be contained on account of their providing medaling in a ground of allowing with or without meant because which made coupled become blanketed with a candidly increased just as if in predicting example of which without meant and coupled inclined as much without meant to be thought as if it were as ably rested too.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dymanic

Grammar can be contained on account of their providing medaling in a ground of allowing with or without meant because which made coupled become blanketed with a candidly increased just as if in predicting example of which without meant and coupled inclined as much without meant to be thought as if it were as ably rested too. Or, perhaps you're just not familiar with the topic? :D

[Dymanic]

Or, perhaps you're just not familiar with the topic?
Yeah, you're really breaking new ground here.

[exarch]

Originally posted by max
Throughout the centuries had we kept to that law I suspect there would be no africans and many other third world people would have become extinct.I find this a very disturbing remark.

I agree with your point that the world would have been a very different place if people hadn't gone out and travelled everywhere, explored every nook and cranny they could reach.

But the assumption that people in Africa - who have been able to survive in that place since before the emergence of modern man as we know it - would somehow have gone extinct simply because they are currently facing a few civil-war induced famines in a couple of countries, is completely wrong. Overpopulation is most likely the reason for those wars in the first place. Global warming will only make it worse :rolleyes:

[Riddick]

Originally posted by Dymanic
Is God responsible for this? (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040205_2252.html)
The cause of that is Satan.

You might say, however, that God is indirectly responsible for that because he created lucifer/satan.

unfortunately i saw where that child died. or should i say fortunately? it was a very unfortunate situation, no matter how you chalk it up.

that is the reason satan must pay with his life one day. so no more of those situations will arise.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Dymanic

Grammar can be contained on account of their providing medaling in a ground of allowing with or without meant because which made coupled become blanketed with a candidly increased just as if in predicting example of which without meant and coupled inclined as much without meant to be thought as if it were as ably rested too.
Yes, that's it exactly. I just wish I had the same way with words that you do.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tricky

But it is potentially provable. If you provided me evidence, (like a picture, some ID etc.) I would probably believe you. Also, I have lots of empirical evidence that most people sit in chairs when they work at their computer.
Originally posted by Iacchus
Yeah, but you've got to find me first! ;)

And potentially, I could find you. It is not worth the effort, since I already accept that you exist based on the empiracle evidence that you post here. However, you have lots of evidence for your existence. Those Cheetos crumbs around the keyboard, for example. ;) God doesn't eat Cheetos.

Originally posted by Tricky

Showing me God's ID is going to be a bit harder. And I have no empiracle evidence of one.


Originally posted by Iacchus
And what if He just happened to sit down in the chair beside you?
And what if a monkey jumped out of your butt and typed Hamlet on your keyboard? Of all the lame arguments, "what if" is the lamest. You can do better than that (I hope).

Originally posted by Tricky
Yes. I shall dedicate one nanosecond of my life to worrying about vengeful spirits. It's not worth any more.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well it's all about trauma you see, and getting you upset, and by that time the spirit has gottcha! Any good Voodoo expert will tell you that. This is why people who are disturbed -- upset, tramatized, emotionally unstable -- tend to hear voices.

And people who tend to hear voices also tend to be spiritual. All the good evangalists claim that God speaks to them. Atheists/materialists rarely make such a claim, wouldn't you say? You really are swinging wildly here, lacchus. Either that or you are just joking. It's hard to tell with you.

Originally posted by Tricky
But as for labels, the "spiritual people are only constrained homocidal maniacs" comment was a bit of hyperbole in response to the suggestion that non-spiritual people would be immoral because they have no "retribution" to worry about. Both are ludicrous propositions.

Originally posted by Iacchus

All I can tell you is that if you keep pressing the buttons, sooner or later you're going to set off something that you wish you hadn't.
And all I can tell you is let 'er rip. Give me your best shot. Let your god give me his best shot. Let your spirits give me their best shots. I am not the least bit frightened. I stopped believing in the boogey man many years ago. Tell me which buttons to press and I will gladly press them. If I emerge unscathed, will you consider that my position has merit?

Originally posted by Tricky
Only every woo-woo in the world.

Originally posted by Iacchus
As if that's what it was all about? ... Guess again!
I don't have to guess. I know what it's all about. My spiritual guide told me. "The Hokey Pokey; That's what it's all about".

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Riddick

The cause of that is Satan.
Or maybe God's been reading Stephen King (again).

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox
Top postings Tricky, Yahweh, et al. You have the patience of saints.
Thank you kindly Lennox :)

Iacchus you are one fruity motherf*cker.
Iacchus is certainly much more interesting a person I have ever conversed with...

Of course he won't be coming back to this thread.
Not so sure :p

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and according to the Bible this is what it suggests. Does it make any less sense to say The Gardner, say someone like Luther Burbank, transplanted one of His favorite plants/hybrids from the garden and out into the field?

Of course it's all contingent upon whether a Master Gardner truly exists or not, but if He does, then it's entirely possible.
Actually, if this Master Gardner exists, then your interpretation becomes possible under a series of "ifs" and "assumptions".

From what we have, the origins of humans from fossil history are indistinguishable from that of Evolution and natural forces.

If you believe Humans were transplanted onto this Earth, then you have to assume God created the Earth with an apparent history. Of course, I doubt this would be the case, Romans 1:20 says that God is to be "understood from what has been made." If the Human Transplant hypothesis has any credence, you have to assume God deliberately decieves people, and specifically in a way that they are led to believe the history of the human evolution is that of natural forces to the extent that even God himself does not exist.

You hypothesis is a less favorable option (in that people do not like to view God is a liar or deliberately decieving) under the assumption that Master Gardner exists.

I wouldn't be too sure of that either. It's understandable that such a lineage should be recognizable and set in place, and exhibit some sense of compatibility, otherwise how could a successful transplant possibly occur? ...
To which I agree, and which I ground the belief that no such transplant occurred.

The bible is not inerrant, it would be quite irresponsible to make a claim like that. It is rather a largely American phenomena to claim biblical inerrancy, however this sentiment will leave even the heartiest American Christian after having gone through a college course on Theology. This is important for 2 reasons:
1. One Christian writer once wrote that any interpretation of the bible which is inconsistent with science is probably a wrong interpretation. Areas of the bible which contradict science are best viewed to be errancies.

2. Rather than see the bible as an accurate science and history book, you can see it for what it was intended to be: A tool to help guide you into living a life of love. The literalization of the bible destroys this message.

When I read the bible, I see errors. I neglect Genesis, and I do not believe there is any rational way you can suggests Genesis is an accurate description of the processes which occur on Earth. It contradicts known and accepted science, Genesis in any interpretation as a description of science and history should therefore be rejected.

However, if you would like to salvage Genesis as a tool for guidance, and not as a history book, then I can certainly describe to you how you can interpret Genesis as an allegory if you like.

While here's another quote from the Christian Forums thread, Evolution is a Test from God (http://www.christianforums.com/t90452) ...

Can't you see that there's two forces at play here: the constancy of the sun -- which, is most like God -- and the evolutionary forces which exist on the planet? Whereas at some point, if God truly does exist, then there must be some place where the spiritual meets the natural, and this I would suggest to you is man.
Depending on how you define God, you could possibly be in the right place to call the sun by the name of God. This would be redefining conventional definitons of God, but nothing I would object to if you kept the description of the sun/God to strictly Natural Phenomena.

To think of the sun as God, or the reduce down the concept of God as "nothing more than the universe/the sun/the earth" is almost atheistic.

If God truely does exist, then I would think of it as reasonable to conclude that the Natural World and the Spiritual World are seperate. So far, everything around us is utterly indistinguishable from a completely Naturalistic Universe. If God truely does exist, then would most easily fit into a Deist's concept of God (that is a God said "let their be a bang", then abandoned his creation, letting the universe go about at its own accord). The Christian Concept of God (one who regularly interferes with the lives of humans and the Earth) is incompatible with our understanding of his Creation, I am forced to assume 2 things:
1. God exists, though he exists as a Deist's concept of God
2. There is no God
3. Perhaps I've missed something, and you could better explain what missing option #3 is.

If there is a connection between the Physical World and the Spiritual World (assuming the spiritual world exists), I would suggest witchcraft or meditation is the way you will find it. But, being the person I am, I remain ever pessimistic, I doubt you'll ever find a Spiritual World.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Actually, if this Master Gardner exists, then your interpretation becomes possible under a series of "ifs" and "assumptions". Well, the whole point is to establish whether or not the Master Gardner truly exists, otherwise what's the point in trying to establish the other? Because the two are obviously dependent upon each other.


From what we have, the origins of humans from fossil history are indistinguishable from that of Evolution and natural forces.I don't doubt that credence should be given to the theory of evolution, but there's also plenty of evidence to suggest that we're spiritual beings, in which case I think it's necessary to try and find grounds by which to integrate the two.


If you believe Humans were transplanted onto this Earth, then you have to assume God created the Earth with an apparent history. Of course, I doubt this would be the case, Romans 1:20 says that God is to be "understood from what has been made." If the Human Transplant hypothesis has any credence, you have to assume God deliberately decieves people, and specifically in a way that they are led to believe the history of the human evolution is that of natural forces to the extent that even God himself does not exist.

You hypothesis is a less favorable option (in that people do not like to view God is a liar or deliberately decieving) under the assumption that Master Gardner exists.And why bother to bring up the Bible without including the possiblity of what the book of Genesis says? Afterall this is what I'm basing my point upon.


To which I agree, and which I ground the belief that no such transplant occurred.

The bible is not inerrant, it would be quite irresponsible to make a claim like that. It is rather a largely American phenomena to claim biblical inerrancy, however this sentiment will leave even the heartiest American Christian after having gone through a college course on Theology. This is important for 2 reasons:
1. One Christian writer once wrote that any interpretation of the bible which is inconsistent with science is probably a wrong interpretation. Areas of the bible which contradict science are best viewed to be errancies.

2. Rather than see the bible as an accurate science and history book, you can see it for what it was intended to be: A tool to help guide you into living a life of love. The literalization of the bible destroys this message.

When I read the bible, I see errors. I neglect Genesis, and I do not believe there is any rational way you can suggests Genesis is an accurate description of the processes which occur on Earth. It contradicts known and accepted science, Genesis in any interpretation as a description of science and history should therefore be rejected.

However, if you would like to salvage Genesis as a tool for guidance, and not as a history book, then I can certainly describe to you how you can interpret Genesis as an allegory if you like.Yes, but if you're going to use science as the means of inquiry, it would be nice if you can find reasons to include the book of Genesis. Afterall it does say Adam and Eve were an orginal pair who, through a lack of spirituality let's say, were banned from the (spiritual) Garden and had to eke it out in the natural world. How does this conflict with what I'm saying? Indeed maybe it had to happen this way, in order to establish a rational means by which to understand that which is spiritual? Or, at the very least it helps further the illustration that a difference in potential exists between the natural and the spiritual.

And, while this may sound like a horrible thing to do to one's newly born creation, maybe it's none other than the type of shock a plant experiences when it's transplanted to a new environment?


Depending on how you define God, you could possibly be in the right place to call the sun by the name of God. This would be redefining conventional definitons of God, but nothing I would object to if you kept the description of the sun/God to strictly Natural Phenomena.

To think of the sun as God, or the reduce down the concept of God as "nothing more than the universe/the sun/the earth" is almost atheistic.And yet as you say, "God is to be understood from what has been made."


If God truely does exist, then I would think of it as reasonable to conclude that the Natural World and the Spiritual World are seperate. So far, everything around us is utterly indistinguishable from a completely Naturalistic Universe. If God truely does exist, then would most easily fit into a Deist's concept of God (that is a God said "let their be a bang", then abandoned his creation, letting the universe go about at its own accord). The Christian Concept of God (one who regularly interferes with the lives of humans and the Earth) is incompatible with our understanding of his Creation, I am forced to assume 2 things:

1. God exists, though he exists as a Deist's concept of God
2. There is no God
3. Perhaps I've missed something, and you could better explain what missing option #3 is.Although I think the Deistic concept is fairly close, we still have to account for the fact that we have a soul which, transcends the natural world upon death. Which of course is stressed throughout the Bible, at least in the New Testament anyway.

Also, if we were truly spiritual, we would be closer to the hand of God so to speak, and more privy to the "synchronistic nature" of things, in which case we might be poised to see things a bit differently, and more apt to accept something as a miracle, as opposed to that which has occurred at random. In which case it might seem like God has taken a more active role in our lives.


If there is a connection between the Physical World and the Spiritual World (assuming the spiritual world exists), I would suggest witchcraft or meditation is the way you will find it. But, being the person I am, I remain ever pessimistic, I doubt you'll ever find a Spiritual World. I understand that Voodoo is a pretty powerful medium and, that meditation is an accomplished path, however I don't recommend taking up Voodoo as a discipline.

If ever there was a connection between the natural world and the spiritual world, it would have to be through mankind now wouldn't it? ;)

[Jim Lennox]

but there's also plenty of evidence to suggest that we're spiritual beings

It seems to me that any 'evidence' of spirituality comes down to what a person says.

Kudos for not abandoning the thread, Iacchus. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox

It seems to me that any 'evidence' of spirituality comes down to what a person says.Or better yet, maybe it all "begins" with what a person says? And from there maybe we can try to reason it out?


Kudos for not abandoning the thread, Iacchus. ;) Actually I was in a pretty upity mood when I started the thread, but have since calmed down, Thanks.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, the whole point is to establish whether or not the Master Gardner truly exists, otherwise what's the point in trying to establish the other? Because the two are obviously dependent upon each other.
I think you are going about this in a bit of a backwards fashion.

From what I understand, you are proposing a theory, and searching for facts to fit the theory. That is not proper reasoning

What you should do is gather information, scrutinize it, and make sure the information you have gathered is accurate. From there, you can develope a theory around the information.

I don't doubt that credence should be given to the theory of evolution, but there's also plenty of evidence to suggest that we're spiritual beings, in which case I think it's necessary to try and find grounds by which to integrate the two.
I have a wholly different concept of "spiritual" than you.

What do you mean by "spiritual beings"?

And why bother to bring up the Bible without including the possiblity of what the book of Genesis says? Afterall this is what I'm basing my point upon.
I do in fact consider the information written in Genesis.

From the information we have observed and demonstrated today, it appears there is quite a bit of conflict with the information written in Genesis. The material in Genesis is inconsistent with our scientific data, therefore when we consider the possibility of a Genesis creation in any particular sense of interpretation as a historical device, we see that there is nothing to gain. Genesis is quite incorrect as historical tool.

Yes, but if you're going to use science as the means of inquiry, it would be nice if you can find reasons to include the book of Genesis. Afterall it does say Adam and Eve were an orginal pair who, through a lack of spirituality let's say, were banned from the (spiritual) Garden and had to eke it out in the natural world. How does this conflict with what I'm saying?
There is conflict because that is not what the history of the world reads.

The first anatomically modern humans was nothing remarkable. In fact, it was probably hardly noticeable. The transition between Humans (Homo Sapiens) and Anatomically Modern Humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) was very gradual, very slow, just as you would expect from Evolution.

This gradual process is quite the antithesis of your hypothesis that humans suddenly popped into existence in the Natural World. As the information demonstrates that gradual change is the way humans came to be, that is the theory we must adopt.

While it would be nice if we could find reasons to include the book of Genesis, it would not be pragmatic. We gather information, we do not try to force the information to conform to our beliefs.

Indeed maybe it had to happen this way, in order to establish a rational means by which to understand that which is spiritual? Or, at the very least it helps further the illustration that a difference in potential exists between the natural and the spiritual.

And, while this may sound like a horrible thing to do to one's newly born creation, maybe it's none other than the type of shock a plant experiences when it's transplanted to a new environment?
One of the important things to keep in mind the difference between science and spirituality.

Science describes how things work and why they are what they are. Religious Spirituality is a tool important to give these things meaning. For this reason, I try to keep my Natural World seperate from my Spiritual Understanding.

Perhaps you should try a more allegorical approach.

The bible is filled with enormous symbolism and quite dramatic allegory. I think this source is as appropriate as any, but have you read SparkNotes? SparkNotes annotates the Old Testament as an allegory, and it does a fairly nice job of doing so.

From SparkNotes - The Old Testament (http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/oldtestament/section1.html):
Analysis

...

The major thematic link of the first eleven chapters is the structuring of the world around a system of parallels and contrasts. Light breaks into the darkness, land separates water, and “the greater light” of the sun opposes “the lesser light” of the moon (1:16). A more complex occurrence of parallel and contrast occurs with the account of man’s creation. Man is not only made in the image of God, paralleling him, but woman, made from the man’s rib, contrasts with man. The Genesis writer uses the poetic device of antistrophe, or the repetition of a line in reverse order, to highlight the parallels and contrasts in the creation of man:

<blockquote>So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 1:27–29</blockquote>

The antistrophe suggests that the world is logically organized around binary opposites, or basic opposing forces. Positive and negative, work and rest, and day and night are among the many binary opposites that the first chapters of Genesis describe. Good and evil is probably the most consistently explored binary opposite in the Old Testament, and the story of Cain and Abel initiates a long analysis of the difference between good and evil. Cain’s deception and murder of Abel, as well as his evasive response to God’s questioning, describe his evil as inherent in his character and unmitigated by other good traits. God’s punishment, however, demonstrates both justice and mercy, establishing God as the absolute good that opposes Cain’s absolute evil.

...

In the account of Noah, God himself uses symbols as much as the authors of the story. God explicitly calls the rainbow a “sign,” or symbol, of his covenant with humanity after the flood (9:12–13). God frequently uses physical objects to show his spiritual -purposes. But unlike the Greek gods of Homer or other Near-Eastern deities, the Hebrew God is never depicted as limited or defined by these objects. Rather, the authors of Genesis suggest that God is telling an elaborate allegorical story through the act of creation and that as God manages the affairs of the earth, symbolic -meaning is one of the primary ways in which he communicates with his creations.

And yet as you say, "God is to be understood from what has been made."

Although I think the Deistic concept is fairly close, we still have to account for the fact that we have a soul which, transcends the natural world upon death. Which of course is stressed throughout the Bible, at least in the New Testament anyway.
I have a different concept of a "soul" than yourself.

From your description over in my "Yahweh's Proof of Naturalism" thread:
If you got rid of all the matter which comprises who you are physically, and examined the remaining engery field or pattern, this would be your soul which, if you could see, would probably look identical to your physical body.
What you should understand about this definition is that it is a very Materialistic definition.

As detailed by Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, energy and matter equivelant. In actuality, all things are comprised of energy, what you recognize as matter is nothing more than "congealed" energy.

When you get rid of all the matter/energy which comprises your physical existence, you have an empty space.

You predict this empty space will look identical to your physical body, however it will not. In an absence of matter, you have a vacuum.

You are free to call this vacuum a "soul", however it will be completely alien definition of a soul which I am familiar with. Your prediction that that this void transcends the Natural World at death is quite bewildering. There is nothing transcending anything.



It is very hard to define exactly what composes your physical body. Does the oxygen fused into my bloodcells compose my physical body? It is hard to say, that oxygen fused into my red bloodcells used to be fused into someone else's red bloodcells, and possibly in a billion other people's red bloodcells, and that oxygen was possibly a molecule of H₂O at one point in the past.



I have a different concept of a "soul" than yourself, however I do not believe my concept of "soul" exists.

My concept of consciousness is different from yours as wel. Whereas you describe consciousness as something which exists as a "field" or a substance seperate from matter, I describe consciousness as a property which means "self-awareness" (the reason you are self-aware is due to a series of complex functions in the brain associated with rapid fluctuations of electricity coursing through the Corpus Callosum).


Also, if we were truly spiritual, we would be closer to the hand of God so to speak, and more privy to the "synchronistic nature" of things, in which case we might be poised to see things a bit differently, and more apt to accept something as a miracle, as opposed to that which has occurred at random. In which case it might seem like God has taken a more active role in our lives.
I have an image in my head of what you just described, and I'm afraid it was not the point you were trying to get across. Please correct me, but when you say "if we were truely spiritual... we might be ... more apt to accept something as a miracle", this translates to me as "If we were more gullible, we might be able to accept things which are false and irrational as actual truths". In that case, I would think it would be a bad thing to be spiritual. (I am cynical by nature.)

I am certain that you were not trying to say "gullibility is a good thing", can you clarify?


I understand that Voodoo is a pretty powerful medium and, that meditation is an accomplished path, however I don't recommend taking up Voodoo as a discipline.

If ever there was a connection between the natural world and the spiritual world, it would have to be through mankind now wouldn't it? ;)
Acts of Mankind more specifically ;)

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Although I think the Deistic concept is fairly close, we still have to account for the fact that we have a soul which, transcends the natural world upon death. Which of course is stressed throughout the Bible, at least in the New Testament anyway.Please provide the scientific study which concluded that human beings have a soul? Otherwise I see no reason for you to call that a fact.

As a matter of fact, we have to take into account the fact that we don't have a soul, which means we cannot transcend the natural world after death, and as such, are unable to join god in death, or go to hell for that matter. Which means that both those concepts are irrelevant.

Of course, that isn't a fact either, now is it?

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Riddick
The cause of that is Satan.

Riddick,

I think you once identified yourself as a 7th Day Adventist. I don't suppose anything like this could ever happen to a woman in your church.. but hypothetically, would the mother and church elders have recognized it as quickly as you and strangled the infant immediately.

Or would they have given little Satan a chance. Do your people have exorcists that might have come in and been able to 'cure' the child?

Can doctors ever truly get Satan out of the innocent. Even if the child had lived, what can be done with the things that are caused by Satan. How do humans really know that the decever has left the building.

Finally, how bad does a human condition have to be before it's recognizable by people of faith that the condition was caused by the devil. I seem to remember that a sneeze from a sniffle gets an automatic 'God bless you' or is that superstition.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by exarch
Please provide the scientific study which concluded that human beings have a soul? Otherwise I see no reason for you to call that a fact.

As a matter of fact, we have to take into account the fact that we don't have a soul, which means we cannot transcend the natural world after death, and as such, are unable to join god in death, or go to hell for that matter. Which means that both those concepts are irrelevant.

Of course, that isn't a fact either, now is it? And, if I said alleged fact would it sound more correct? Not necessarily, because we either have a soul or we don't, and there are those who accept it as a "fact" that we do.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I think you are going about this in a bit of a backwards fashion.

From what I understand, you are proposing a theory, and searching for facts to fit the theory. That is not proper reasoning

What you should do is gather information, scrutinize it, and make sure the information you have gathered is accurate. From there, you can develope a theory around the information.And what you don't understand is that what I'm trying to present to you is based upon what I already know.


I have a wholly different concept of "spiritual" than you.

What do you mean by "spiritual beings"?That when we die our spirit or soul passes on to the spiritual world -- or, afterlife.


I do in fact consider the information written in Genesis.

From the information we have observed and demonstrated today, it appears there is quite a bit of conflict with the information written in Genesis. The material in Genesis is inconsistent with our scientific data, therefore when we consider the possibility of a Genesis creation in any particular sense of interpretation as a historical device, we see that there is nothing to gain. Genesis is quite incorrect as historical tool.When you say "we" you are speaking for yourself and the scientific community. So?


There is conflict because that is not what the history of the world reads.

The first anatomically modern humans was nothing remarkable. In fact, it was probably hardly noticeable. The transition between Humans (Homo Sapiens) and Anatomically Modern Humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) was very gradual, very slow, just as you would expect from Evolution.If this is what you chose to believe that's fine. However, the book of Genesis speaks of an original pair, Adam and Eve which, were the last act of creation by the way.

If you're interested I've created a Spiritual Timeline (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4817) thread over at Physics Forums which accounts for this 10,000 year period I'm talking about.


This gradual process is quite the antithesis of your hypothesis that humans suddenly popped into existence in the Natural World. As the information demonstrates that gradual change is the way humans came to be, that is the theory we must adopt.I for one happen to know that I have a soul, in which case it gives a lot more credibility to the Bible.


While it would be nice if we could find reasons to include the book of Genesis, it would not be pragmatic. We gather information, we do not try to force the information to conform to our beliefs.And yet it's all contingent upon the fact that we have a soul or not, as far as I'm concerned.


One of the important things to keep in mind the difference between science and spirituality.

Science describes how things work and why they are what they are. Religious Spirituality is a tool important to give these things meaning. For this reason, I try to keep my Natural World seperate from my Spiritual Understanding.Yes, it's important to understand why we do what we you do, which is why I don't think science should (necessarily) overlook such things.


Perhaps you should try a more allegorical approach.

The bible is filled with enormous symbolism and quite dramatic allegory. I think this source is as appropriate as any, but have you read SparkNotes? SparkNotes annotates the Old Testament as an allegory, and it does a fairly nice job of doing so.

From SparkNotes - The Old Testament (http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/oldtestament/section1.html):It sounds to me like a means by which to dismiss it, the use of allegory that is. I didn't follow the link by the way.


I have a different concept of a "soul" than yourself.

From your description over in my "Yahweh's Proof of Naturalism" thread:

What you should understand about this definition is that it is a very Materialistic definition.

As detailed by Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, energy and matter equivelant. In actuality, all things are comprised of energy, what you recognize as matter is nothing more than "congealed" energy.

When you get rid of all the matter/energy which comprises your physical existence, you have an empty space.

You predict this empty space will look identical to your physical body, however it will not. In an absence of matter, you have a vacuum.

You are free to call this vacuum a "soul", however it will be completely alien definition of a soul which I am familiar with. Your prediction that that this void transcends the Natural World at death is quite bewildering. There is nothing transcending anything.All I can tell you is that I know the soul is affixed to conscioussness, and it's this "conscious energy" that departs when we die.




It is very hard to define exactly what composes your physical body. Does the oxygen fused into my bloodcells compose my physical body? It is hard to say, that oxygen fused into my red bloodcells used to be fused into someone else's red bloodcells, and possibly in a billion other people's red bloodcells, and that oxygen was possibly a molecule of H₂O at one point in the past.

I would say that oxygen and water are inert in terms of the body, but this is just a guess?


I have a different concept of a "soul" than yourself, however I do not believe my concept of "soul" exists.Well obviously. ;)


My concept of consciousness is different from yours as wel. Whereas you describe consciousness as something which exists as a "field" or a substance seperate from matter, I describe consciousness as a property which means "self-awareness" (the reason you are self-aware is due to a series of complex functions in the brain associated with rapid fluctuations of electricity coursing through the Corpus Callosum).Let me ask you this? What would we be without consciousness? Would we even know that we exist? Isn't it in fact consciousness that defines reality? Therefore when our body dies, and our consciousness departs (which it no doubt does), is it possible that it goes on to define a different reality?


I have an image in my head of what you just described, and I'm afraid it was not the point you were trying to get across. Please correct me, but when you say "if we were truely spiritual... we might be ... more apt to accept something as a miracle", this translates to me as "If we were more gullible, we might be able to accept things which are false and irrational as actual truths". In that case, I would think it would be a bad thing to be spiritual. (I am cynical by nature.)

I am certain that you were not trying to say "gullibility is a good thing", can you clarify?No, it's more a matter of aligning yourself in a certain way, say like pivoting the rabbit ears on a TV set, in order to get a better reception of the signal.


Acts of Mankind more specifically ;) Huh?

P.S. If you're interested I've created a Spiritual Timeline (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4817) thread over at Physics Forums which accounts for this 10,000 year period I'm talking about.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus

I don't doubt that credence should be given to the theory of evolution, but there's also plenty of evidence to suggest that we're spiritual beings, in which case I think it's necessary to try and find grounds by which to integrate the two.


Please tell us iacchus, how would we be different if we were not spiritual beings?


through a lack of spirituality let's say, were banned from the (spiritual) Garden and had to eke it out in the natural world.


According to the bible, adam and eve did not know the difference between good and evil. So somebody comes along, and tells them to eat a certain tree, and it will make their creator happy. How are they supposed to know that one being is good, and one is evil? How should they know who to believe? If they had no way of knowing, why the punishment? It would be like punishing a 3 month old from spitting up on you.

(BTW, are you saying that adam and eve did not have spirits)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what you don't understand is that what I'm trying to present to you is based upon what I already know.
The easiest way to get a point across to me is through epistemological analysis.

That when we die our spirit or soul passes on to the spiritual world -- or, afterlife.
In that case, I do not believe we are spiritual beings.

At least one reason is the concept of supernaturalism. I reject Supernaturalism probably because I would have no idea how to define a reality based on Supernaturalism. Further, it is quite impossible to distinguish one supernatural explanation for an event from another supernatural explanation for an event. Therefore, Supernatural explanations are worthless.

I reject the belief in spirit or soul because it cannot be described in terms of matter or natural phenomena, it has never been observed of demonstrated, and it is quite supernatural.

When you say "we" you are speaking for yourself and the scientific community. So?
It is important that I speak in terms of the Scientific Community.

I wrote this proof for my "Yahweh's Proof for Naturalism" thread:

Premise 1: It is rational and reasonable to base one's metaphysical beliefs on that of natural science

Premise 2: The metaphysical picture of the world one gets when led by natural science is that of Naturalism.

Conclusion: It is rational to believe in Naturalism, or furthermore that Naturalism is true.


Speaking in terms of Scientific Scrutiny is quite essential when you want to understand the world around you. It is a very good tool for analysis.

If you dont speak in terms of Science, or if your view of reality is opposite that of one led by natural science, then you have a false view of reality. I have no interest in a false view of reality.

If you're interested I've created a Spiritual Timeline (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4817) thread over at Physics Forums which accounts for this 10,000 year period I'm talking about.
I havent visited PhysicsForums in a while. The JREF boards are more fun!

I've read through your thread, and as you can imagine, I would disagree with a great deal of it. :p

I for one happen to know that I have a soul, in which case it gives a lot more credibility to the Bible.
Well, I do not believe that the soul exists. However, ever skeptical I am, I would like to know how can prove to myself that I do in fact have a soul. How would I go about doing this?

And yet it's all contingent upon the fact that we have a soul or not, as far as I'm concerned.
I would disagree. The information we gather is completely neutral question of whether we have a soul.

However, an analysis of this information, it does not look positive. Cynical, yes, but that cynicism is only a result of preconcieved expectations.

Yes, it's important to understand why we do what we you do, which is why I don't think science should (necessarily) overlook such things.
Which is what we do.

If there is any substance in the Spiritual World, then it should be quite easy to make a case for it.

It is not unusual for Scientists to make conclusions which are contrary to their preconceptions. Scientists start with evidence which leads them to the conclusion, while creationists start with the conclusion and look for facts to support it (I've already mentioned this, I feel its necessary to mention again). The history of science is filled with scientists accepting ideas contrary to their preconceptions. Examples include the reality of extinctions, the reality of meteors, meteors as causes of mass extinctions, continental drift, transposons, bacteria as the cause of ulcers, the nature of prions, and, of course, evolution itself. Scientists are not immune to being sidetracked by their preconceptions, but they ultimately go where the evidence leads.

It sounds to me like a means by which to dismiss it, the use of allegory that is. I didn't follow the link by the way.
Actually, I see the allegorical approach as a means to do anything but dismiss it.

Unfortunately, Genesis has no scientific or historical value. The Allegorical approach allows you to get something out of the bible, to use it as a resource to guide you in ways to live. The purpose of Genesis is not lost simply because there is no literal application for it, it is merely refined.

All I can tell you is that I know the soul is affixed to conscioussness, and it's this "conscious energy" that departs when we die.
"Consciousness Energy" comes in the form of Sodium-Potassium pumps, which are involved in cellular metabolism.

At best, when you die, all the potential energy which is stored inside your body goes right back into the Earth, or is becomes useless Entropy.

I would say that oxygen and water are inert in terms of the body, but this is just a guess?
All the atoms and energy which compose your body come from everywhere around the universe. Parts of your body fall off all the time (fingernails, skin cells, hair).

When you eat food, it becomes part of your body. Some of it will be stored as fat, and it would be quite difficult to consider that fat as something which is not your own body.

Let me ask you this? What would we be without consciousness? Would we even know that we exist?
We would continue to be what we are without consciousness, we would just be unaware of our own existence.

In fact, when you go to sleep, you are quite unaware of your own existence. That would be part of the process of being "unconscious" while dreaming, wouldnt it?

We would not know that we existed.

Isn't it in fact consciousness that defines reality?
Reality would continue to exist, regardless of whether you possessed consciousness or not.

Therefore when our body dies, and our consciousness departs (which it no doubt does), is it possible that it goes on to define a different reality?
I define reality as "the totality of all things which exist objectively".

I do not see any coherent way how consciousness (being an adjective, this adjective describes self-awareness) departs from the body. It is incoherent because it treats something which exists in an abstract sense as something which exists concretely.

Essentially, that is comparable to me claiming that no man is evil, simply because evil cannot be observed in a petri dish. I would be treating the abstract concept of evil, as something which exists concretely, and thats bad.

No, it's more a matter of aligning yourself in a certain way, say like pivoting the rabbit ears on a TV set, in order to get a better reception of the signal.
I remain ever open-minded.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Although I think the Deistic concept is fairly close, we still have to account for the fact that we have a soul which, transcends the natural world upon death. Which of course is stressed throughout the Bible, at least in the New Testament anyway.
Originally posted by exarch
Please provide the scientific study which concluded that human beings have a soul? Otherwise I see no reason for you to call that a fact.Originally posted by Iacchus
And, if I said alleged fact would it sound more correct?No, still not sufficient. I think the phrase "Although I think the Deistic concept is fairly close, we still have to account for the assumption that we have a soul which, presumably transcends the natural world upon death." is more correct.

I still wouldn't agree with your assumptions and presumptions, but at least it's written correctly.Not necessarily, because we either have a soul or we don't, and there are those who accept it as a "fact" that we do.That's their problem. They have no reason to accept it as a fact, since there is no evidence, and there most likely never will be. There's also no logical reason to believe that we have a soul, so whenever they try to use logic to prove their assumed "fact", they will fail, or make a logical fallacy.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I define reality as "the totality of all things which exist objectively".

First let me say, I really like your stuff. This is not a criticism. More of a longwinded response to that one thought you expressed.

To me Objective Reality as you describe it, unquestionably real though it is, is the bleak airless moonscape of human experience. Something happens in the apprehension of that reality, something tied to but not limited to awareness of it: appreciation.

When the poet decribes the same reality as the scientist, he too communicates a truth. It speaks to a different part of us than the cold facts of reality. It is in that Subjective Reality that soul and god and evil and all the angels and devils that haunt the mind dwell. Don't you agree?

To me, that is that part of us which contemplates the universe and it is that same part that contemplates ourselves within the universe. That self referential experience gives rise to the notion that we are somehow transcendent.

Artists and religionists cannot accept that human beings are merely talking meatbags. That is too untranscendent. While an omnipotent god could do it... He wouldn't. Not to them. They know that they are special creatures; and how many of us think we are not "special" in some regard. Indeed, knowing that you are a special creature has evolutionary advantages. It makes you 'fitter' than someone who lacks esteem.

So what makes us special? Well the great thing about Subjective Reality is you can make it up. And here is where the soul of man is born, an essential part that is pure and good. The part that hopes on tomorrow. The part that percieves the unknown with a name - God.

And, of course, for many it is the part that gives meaning to experience and life itself. So ingrained in the subjective realities of human beings, the soul - or delusion of it, must be considered part of our objective reality. We see it operate.

It can serve man when it is the inspiration of art and architecture, those creative impulses (soulplus). Where it serves to inspire others to kill or to voodoo superstitions(soulminus), it is a threat to humankind. ('Soul' should breakdown into several other concepts too.)

Anyway - I guess I'm trying to get at a definition of soul that operates within the living human. There is no evidence against the observation that when death takes the living human it takes it all. But since 'soul' is that part that hopes on tomorrow, I can see another's need to disagree.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

Please tell us iacchus, how would we be different if we were not spiritual beings?That would be like me asking you what came before the Big Bang. :D


According to the bible, adam and eve did not know the difference between good and evil. So somebody comes along, and tells them to eat a certain tree, and it will make their creator happy. How are they supposed to know that one being is good, and one is evil? How should they know who to believe? If they had no way of knowing, why the punishment? It would be like punishing a 3 month old from spitting up on you. Which, is why I suggest they weren't spirtual -- although they were no doubt spiritual beings -- because they weren't grounded in what they knew ... hence the nature of the fall, i.e., in the sense that it was inevitable. Perhaps like an apple falling from a tree?


(BTW, are you saying that adam and eve did not have spirits) No, obviously. ;)

[exarch]

Originally posted by AtlasAre you fishing for a language award :D

[Atlas]

Originally posted by exarch
Are you fishing for a language award :D
I was nominated for newbie of the month and I'm angling for the prize. I'm falling behind in the number of posts so I'm trying to make 'em count.

Thanks

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but how do you know that I'm not imaginary and you just didn't make me up? The imagination can be a very powerful thing, especially when people start hearing voices and what not -- that won't go away!

Because no matter how hard I concentrate, your posts don't disappear from this forum. And no matter how much I try to pretend my computer doesn't exist, it refuses to go away, and no matter how much I would like my ISP not to charge me monthly, alas, there is still a bill to pay every month.

In reference to hearing voices, if you are the only one hearing them, then maybe you should consider that as a problem that is singular to yourself, not to society as a whole.

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by RussDill
(BTW, are you saying that adam and eve did not have spirits) That's a good question.



Were there bars in Eden?

Okay, two spirit puns in one day. Please kill me now.

[Peter Soderqvist]

The soul exists in an abstract sense, just as aesthetics, goodness, evilness, and other abstract concept does, but if these concepts survives the death of the body is quite another question! I have no reason to believe that they do so, except my wishful thinking! The burden of proof is on the shoulders of them who allege so! Since it is close to impossible to prove something negative ("no reincarnation")! I cannot say that there is no such thing as eternal souls, but I can agnostically say that I have no reason to believe that there is any such phenomenon!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
The soul exists in an abstract sense, just as aesthetics, goodness, evilness, and other abstract concept does, but if these concepts survives the death of the body is quite another question! I have no reason to believe that they do so, except my wishful thinking! The burden of proof is on the shoulders of them who allege so! Since it is close to impossible to prove something negative ("no reincarnation")! I cannot say that there is no such thing as eternal souls, but I can agnostically say that I have no reason to believe that there is any such phenomenon! If the soul exists only in the abstract sense then it doesn't exist.

[Peter Soderqvist]

Hypothetically; the sound waves which bombarding my eardrums is not the beautiful music I feel, because beauty have no wavelengths, it doesn't have any objective existence, because my neighbor hate it! It is an illusion as far as science of physics is concerned!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
Hypothetically; the sound waves which bombarding my eardrums is not the beautiful music I feel, because beauty have no wavelengths, it doesn't have any objective existence, because my neighbor hate it! It is an illusion as far as science of physics is concerned! Then it "sounds" to me like something is missing here. Science tends to get lost in the mechanics of things and lose sight of their overall functionality. Which, would be akin to not being able to see the forest from trees, and I agree.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

The easiest way to get a point across to me is through epistemological analysis.Yes, and this is usually I how I try to explain it, except when someone suggests I'm going about it backwards, which in effect says I have no grounds which by to speak ... and, that "their" position is obviously the default postion.


In that case, I do not believe we are spiritual beings.

At least one reason is the concept of supernaturalism. I reject Supernaturalism probably because I would have no idea how to define a reality based on Supernaturalism. Further, it is quite impossible to distinguish one supernatural explanation for an event from another supernatural explanation for an event. Therefore, Supernatural explanations are worthless.In other words by worthless you're suggesting it doesn't exist.


I reject the belief in spirit or soul because it cannot be described in terms of matter or natural phenomena, it has never been observed of demonstrated, and it is quite supernatural.It's never been observed in a petri dish in other words.


It is important that I speak in terms of the Scientific Community.

I wrote this proof for my "Yahweh's Proof for Naturalism" thread:

Premise 1: It is rational and reasonable to base one's metaphysical beliefs on that of natural science

Premise 2: The metaphysical picture of the world one gets when led by natural science is that of Naturalism.

Conclusion: It is rational to believe in Naturalism, or furthermore that Naturalism is true.But by its very name, metaphysical describes what "precedes" physical science. So you don't know that it's not spiritual.


Speaking in terms of Scientific Scrutiny is quite essential when you want to understand the world around you. It is a very good tool for analysis.

If you dont speak in terms of Science, or if your view of reality is opposite that of one led by natural science, then you have a false view of reality. I have no interest in a false view of reality.Yes, natural science is very good for describing what is "physical."


I havent visited PhysicsForums in a while. The JREF boards are more fun!

I've read through your thread, and as you can imagine, I would disagree with a great deal of it. :p

Well, I do not believe that the soul exists. However, ever skeptical I am, I would like to know how can prove to myself that I do in fact have a soul. How would I go about doing this?It's like the radio analogy I keep giving, you need to understand that "you" are the radio and "you" are the one who needs to tune in.


I would disagree. The information we gather is completely neutral question of whether we have a soul.

However, an analysis of this information, it does not look positive. Cynical, yes, but that cynicism is only a result of preconcieved expectations.Again it all depends on "who" established what.


Which is what we do.

If there is any substance in the Spiritual World, then it should be quite easy to make a case for it.Not if you're looking for a completely natural explanation without understanding that the spiritual precedes the natural.


It is not unusual for Scientists to make conclusions which are contrary to their preconceptions. Scientists start with evidence which leads them to the conclusion, while creationists start with the conclusion and look for facts to support it (I've already mentioned this, I feel its necessary to mention again). The history of science is filled with scientists accepting ideas contrary to their preconceptions. Examples include the reality of extinctions, the reality of meteors, meteors as causes of mass extinctions, continental drift, transposons, bacteria as the cause of ulcers, the nature of prions, and, of course, evolution itself. Scientists are not immune to being sidetracked by their preconceptions, but they ultimately go where the evidence leads.If scientists understood that the material world is the outcropping of the spritil world, then they may begin to find the need to look into their own minds.


Actually, I see the allegorical approach as a means to do anything but dismiss it.Yes, I believe much of the Bible is like this, but that isn't to say you should use this to dismiss a possible literal meaning as well.


Unfortunately, Genesis has no scientific or historical value. The Allegorical approach allows you to get something out of the bible, to use it as a resource to guide you in ways to live. The purpose of Genesis is not lost simply because there is no literal application for it, it is merely refined.This is completely untrue.


"Consciousness Energy" comes in the form of Sodium-Potassium pumps, which are involved in cellular metabolism.

At best, when you die, all the potential energy which is stored inside your body goes right back into the Earth, or is becomes useless Entropy.From the standpoint of not partaking in the actual process yourself of course. ;)


All the atoms and energy which compose your body come from everywhere around the universe. Parts of your body fall off all the time (fingernails, skin cells, hair).

When you eat food, it becomes part of your body. Some of it will be stored as fat, and it would be quite difficult to consider that fat as something which is not your own body.In spite of all that there's still a navigator in the midst of it all, and that's "you."


We would continue to be what we are without consciousness, we would just be unaware of our own existence.

In fact, when you go to sleep, you are quite unaware of your own existence. That would be part of the process of being "unconscious" while dreaming, wouldnt it?

We would not know that we existed.Yes, but aren't we also conscious in our dreams? I've had dreams where I was completey wide awake, but not in the "physical sense" ... http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html


Reality would continue to exist, regardless of whether you possessed consciousness or not.Possibly, but who's to say it isn't driven by some Universal Consciousness, comparable to say the hollodeck on Star Trek?


I define reality as "the totality of all things which exist objectively".Yes, but who or what is defining it?


I do not see any coherent way how consciousness (being an adjective, this adjective describes self-awareness) departs from the body. It is incoherent because it treats something which exists in an abstract sense as something which exists concretely.If you're saying consciousness is merely abstract, then I would have to ask "you" to get real. The very "thing" that establishes what is concrete is not concrete itself?


Essentially, that is comparable to me claiming that no man is evil, simply because evil cannot be observed in a petri dish. I would be treating the abstract concept of evil, as something which exists concretely, and thats bad.Evil would have to be driven by something other than what is material then. Besides, where do our thoughts and feelings come from?


I remain ever open-minded. It seems like I used to have an open mind once. :p

[Peter Soderqvist]

If consciousness is impotent, why did the genes built the human brain big, when genes for lesser brain should have competition advantage over the more wasteful genes? And it follows from that; Impotent consciousness doesn't fit the Darwinian description! It doesn't fit Newton's third law of motion either, which states that; for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction! Impotent consciousness has sometimes been likened with shadows, or steams which, doesn't have any impact on the world! But that is wrong, since steams from engines can lift dust in the atmosphere, and shadows can influence photocells, and it follows from that; if stimulus can impinge (act) upon the mind, and so make us aware about something, then the mind can react back upon the world too! Consciousness is like soap opera, which can be seen in our TV, but who can say that; the origin of soap opera is interaction of conductors in the TV? Consciousness is mediated by neurons, just as conductors in the TV mediate soap opera, but neither consciousness, nor soap opera, can be understood in terms of interaction of component parts!

The second law of thermodynamics is an emergent phenomenon, since heat has no meaning to a single particle; it is a collection of particles in random motion! I mean that how can something be random if you have nothing to compare with? The sum is more than the component parts in nonlinear systems! For instance in the experiments with the two holes in quantum mechanics, there is a light strip to the left, when the left hole is open, and a light strip to the right when the right hole is open, and it stand to reason that two light strips should be there when both holes are open, but nope; there are always a fence there with five or six light strips when both holes are open! A complex nonlinear system raises emergent properties, which cannot be found in its individual elements. For instance a vortex in your bathtub cannot be understood from the knowledge of the properties, of the molecules, which makes up the water! Because interaction between these indefinitely many molecules rises emergent properties (a vortex), which can only be understood on higher level, or order, namely, at the laws of fluid dynamics.

A single ant is considered as automaton and has only 6 ways to signalizing to his fellows, and is considered unconscious by the biologists. But interactions between ants in an anthill is very complex, for instance some ant species takes other ants as slaves, and some of these ants are "farmers" and cultivates fungus, and other keep aphids as domestics, and milking them, etc! These emergent properties cannot be found in a single ant's psychology, not in its physiology either! Hofstadter & Dennett has said in the Mind's I. Ants in the anthill, and neurons in the brain is analogous, and the anthill is an individual, eloquently named; Anthillary! I seriously doubt that consciousness can be reduced to matter until someone can pin down the pattern of consciousness and show that; "this" is how a pattern in a human look like when he has a predilection for fruit, but instead of that, he begins to like chocolate, if we change the pattern into this particular configuration! ;)

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Then it "sounds" to me like something is missing here. Science tends to get lost in the mechanics of things and lose sight of their overall functionality. Which, would be akin to not being able to see the forest from trees, and I agree.There is nothing scientific about things like "pretty", "nice", "delicious", and other such subjective terms, and science isn't really interested in them either.

That's why many woowoo things can't be quantified or validated, because they rely so much on subjective experience (since that is the only effect they really have).

If there was a way to objectively measure prettyness, or deliciousness, then maybe science could categorise everything according to, for instance, "Cleopatra's prettyness scale", and you could actually have discussions about which is prettier. Unfortunately, pretty is not a rock solid quality. Something does not become heavier or lighter depending on who is holding it, but it does become prettier or uglier depending on who's looking at it, so there's no point in saying science is flawed. On the contrary, science is able to ignore irrelevant data by only taking into account those properties that can be measured. If they didn't, they really would be unable to see the forest through the trees.

So all you have to do to convince the scientific world that the soul exists is devise a way to measure or detect the soul. It's that simple. Until then, it's just a hypothesis.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by exarch

There is nothing scientific about things like "pretty", "nice", "delicious", and other such subjective terms, and science isn't really interested in them either.What are you saying these things don't exist then? Bah!


That's why many woowoo things can't be quantified or validated, because they rely so much on subjective experience (since that is the only effect they really have).Hey speak for yourself.

Why, because they don't have Big Brother science to back them up?


If there was a way to objectively measure prettyness, or deliciousness, then maybe science could categorise everything according to, for instance, "Cleopatra's prettyness scale", and you could actually have discussions about which is prettier. Unfortunately, pretty is not a rock solid quality. Something does not become heavier or lighter depending on who is holding it, but it does become prettier or uglier depending on who's looking at it, so there's no point in saying science is flawed. On the contrary, science is able to ignore irrelevant data by only taking into account those properties that can be measured. If they didn't, they really would be unable to see the forest through the trees.What's the point in having a life if you don't enjoy it?


So all you have to do to convince the scientific world that the soul exists is devise a way to measure or detect the soul. It's that simple. Until then, it's just a hypothesis. Do you realize that this is the whole crux of existence that we're talking about? And you insist on taking it so lightly? Damn if I wasn't beginning to think science was just another woo woo practice!

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What are you saying these things don't exist then? Bah!I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm merely saying that they aren't universal values, they differ from person to person, that's the meaning of the word "subjective".

That's why many woowoo things can't be quantified or validated, because they rely so much on subjective experience (since that is the only effect they really have).Hey speak for yourself.

Why, because they don't have Big Brother science to back them up?No, read what I wrote: Because they don't have any measurable effects except subjective experience of test subjects. In other words, there's no way to prove something is really happening. When chemicals react, there's a measurable effect (explosions, combustion, creation of fumes, change in colour, etc...), when a homepath says he's healing someone, all we know is that the person thinks they're feeling better, and maybe they are, but we don't have any other measurable value ...

What's the point in having a life if you don't enjoy it?:confused:
What does having a life and enjoying it have to do with objective scientific research? Are you suggesting scientists can't enjoy their life? Are you suggesting people who ignore things like "the mars rock is pretty" but instead like to find out what it's made of are unable to enjoy the fact their car is a pretty colour and has a "cool" design?

So all you have to do to convince the scientific world that the soul exists is devise a way to measure or detect the soul. It's that simple. Until then, it's just a hypothesis. Do you realize that this is the whole crux of existence that we're talking about? And you insist on taking it so lightly? Damn if I wasn't beginning to think science was just another woo woo practice!But is it? Is it the whole crux of existence? You keep saying that, but why should I take your word for it? Why should I take someone else's word for it? Why should I take anyone's word for it, even god, who may not even exist. Why should I believe this at all when there is no evidence to support this hypothesis? There is just as much evidence for the hypothesis of "pink unicorns" and "greater vampire wombats", i.e. none whatsoever ...

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's never been observed in a petri dish in other words.Or anywhere else for that matter. It has never been observed at all. Some people may think they have seen something and assumed it was the soul, but there is nothing to support the belief there is really something there to observe.

But by its very name, metaphysical describes what "precedes" physical science. So you don't know that it's not spiritual.The REAL definition of "metaphysical":2 a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses
b : SUPERNATURAL
3 : highly abstract or abstruse; also : THEORETICALAnd of "metaphysics"2 : the system of principles underlying a particular study or subject : PHILOSOPHYSo in other words, metaphysical describes by its very name those things that are unobservable and theoretical. Those things that cannot be proven or disproven. It doesn't "precede" science at all, in fact, it has very little to do with science, it is a form of phylosophy, despite the word "physical".

And just for good measure, the definition of "meta-":1 a : occurring later than or in succession to : after
b : situated behind or beyond

It's like the radio analogy I keep giving, you need to understand that "you" are the radio and "you" are the one who needs to tune in.So you need to learn how to see the things that you can't see. After learning how to see them, you will see them all the time. In other words, you have to go crazy to hear voices, and once you're crazy, you'll hear them all the time. I think I'll pass :rolleyes:

Again it all depends on "who" established what.Not really. In science, it doesn't matter who first came up with a new theory, or why, all that's important is that knowledge will increase.

Not if you're looking for a completely natural explanation without understanding that the spiritual precedes the natural.But as I already pointed out before, you were misunderstanding the definition of the word metaphysical, so try again.

Yes, but who or what is defining it?
Many people are defining it, and the best, most complete, most correct definition is the one that stays.

If you're saying consciousness is merely abstract, then I would have to ask "you" to get real. The very "thing" that establishes what is concrete is not concrete itself?Consciousness is merely the ability to be aware, of others and of oneself:Main Entry: con·scious·ness
Pronunciation: -n&s
Function: noun
1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
c : AWARENESS; especially : concern for some social or political cause
2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : MIND
3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual
4 : the normal state of conscious life
5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

Evil would have to be driven by something other than what is material then. Besides, where do our thoughts and feelings come from?Just because you don't know where it comes from doesn't make it supernatural. Our thoughts and feelings are chemical and electrical processes in the brain. We know this, even if we don't yet understand exactly how they work.

Besides, evil is subjective. What you would call evil, for example: a ferocious wolf killing a cute little baby rabbit, is not evil to the hungry wolf who hasn't had anything to eat in a week.

It seems like I used to have an open mind once. :pYes, what happened? Why did you close it? :)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by exarch
Or anywhere else for that matter. It has never been observed at all. Some people may think they have seen something and assumed it was the soul, but there is nothing to support the belief there is really something there to observe.That's a load of bull!


The REAL definition of "metaphysical":And of "metaphysics"So in other words, metaphysical describes by its very name those things that are unobservable and theoretical. Those things that cannot be proven or disproven. It doesn't "precede" science at all, in fact, it has very little to do with science, it is a form of phylosophy, despite the word "physical".Yes, but how do we actually know anything until we know?


And just for good measure, the definition of "meta-":1 a : occurring later than or in succession to : after
b : situated behind or beyondPerhaps, but as matter begins with energy, and returns to energy, this is very much how our spirit works. First we are born into this world, with spirits (or souls), and when we die, our body decomposes and our energy (spirits) returns back to where it came. And, much in the way a circle completes itself where it begins, everything begins with and ends with, the spirit. So take your pick (about which came first).


So you need to learn how to see the things that you can't see. After learning how to see them, you will see them all the time. In other words, you have to go crazy to hear voices, and once you're crazy, you'll hear them all the time. I think I'll pass :rolleyes:Been there, done that ... http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html

Of course people take these "little voyages" all the time.


Not really. In science, it doesn't matter who first came up with a new theory, or why, all that's important is that knowledge will increase.Oh, it's very important for a person to have the capacity to understand things for himself though isn't it?


But as I already pointed out before, you were misunderstanding the definition of the word metaphysical, so try again.What about the meta tags which precede the "body" of this web page?


Many people are defining it, and the best, most complete, most correct definition is the one that stays.No, I was just asking if there was a real person behind all the processes he keeps talking about?


Consciousness is merely the ability to be aware, of others and of oneself:Be careful of the use "merely" there.


Just because you don't know where it comes from doesn't make it supernatural. Our thoughts and feelings are chemical and electrical processes in the brain. We know this, even if we don't yet understand exactly how they work.Yes, and this is why you can't accept the fact that you're a "real" person. I mean how dumb does it come?


Besides, evil is subjective. What you would call evil, for example: a ferocious wolf killing a cute little baby rabbit, is not evil to the hungry wolf who hasn't had anything to eat in a week.Do you get angry by the way?


Yes, what happened? Why did you close it? :) I guess I just find it hard to take other people seriously anymore? ;)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If the soul exists only in the abstract sense then it doesn't exist.

Must not exist then, what a disappointment, We gave material bodies we live in a wonderful world. Why gild the lily?

Isn't life enough?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Riddick

The cause of that is Satan.

You might say, however, that God is indirectly responsible for that because he created lucifer/satan.

unfortunately i saw where that child died. or should i say fortunately? it was a very unfortunate situation, no matter how you chalk it up.

that is the reason satan must pay with his life one day. so no more of those situations will arise. Did you know that those who die as little children go to heaven? Doesn't that sound fair enough?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Did you know that those who die as little children go to heaven? Doesn't that sound fair enough?
Depends on who you ask. According to Catholics, they go to Limbo. Some hard-line fundamentalists say they go to hell if they haven't been baptised.

On what basis do you claim authority on this issue?

[max]

Lacchus
I believe that everybody moves on to another dimension not just children, so when you pop your clogs you could find yourself sitting next to Hitler or Attila the Hun:D

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
That's a load of bull!Why?
And why would it be any more or any less bull than what you've been spewing all week? :)

BTW, if my quote: "there is nothing to support the belief there is really something there to observe." is bull, that means you must have evidence that there IS something to support the belief there is a soul. Please provide the evidence :)

Yes, but how do we actually know anything until we know?By experience. Science is the recording of events, events are things being experienced or witnessed. Since nobody has witnessed the soul yet, why would we assume it to exist or be real? Any more real than a pink unicorn or a greater vampire wombat for that matter?

Just admit that you don't *know* the soul exists (since you can't know), but merely want to believe it does because you're afraid it really will all be finished once you die. It has scared people since the dawn of humanity so much that they've come up with all kinds of comforting theories about after-life in some form or another. Myths being perpetuated by religion and making their appearances in all kinds of stories, movies, songs, etc ... All imagined :nope:

Perhaps, but as matter begins with energy, and returns to energy, this is very much how our spirit works. First we are born into this world, with spirits (or souls), and when we die, our body decomposes and our energy (spirits) returns back to where it came. And, much in the way a circle completes itself where it begins, everything begins with and ends with, the spirit. So take your pick (about which came first).That is what you believe. Do you have anything to found that belief upon? Is there any real world observance that makes you so sure everything begins and ends with "the soul"?

What about the meta tags which precede the "body" of this web page?They precede the body, but they are also outside the body, as in "not part of". Hence, metaphysics is not in any way connected with the real (physical) world, but merely theoretical so far.

Yes, and this is why you can't accept the fact that you're a "real" person. I mean how dumb does it come?You are completely wrong. I'm very well capable of accepting the fact that I'm a real person. But I don't see how I would not be able to be aware of myself or of my real physical body without a soul. I do however realise how I would not be self aware (or at least not to the extent of normal humans) if I didn't have a brain.

Speaking of that, do people in a coma have a soul? Or people with serious brain injuries who have become vegetables? Are they still conscious? Has their soul forsaken them?

Consciousness is a state of mind, not a separate entity.

Do you get angry by the way?Sometimes. Not at the moment though ;)

I guess I just find it hard to take other people seriously anymore? ;)Well, you're sure making it really difficult for us to take you seriously ...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by max

Lacchus
I believe that everybody moves on to another dimension not just children, so when you pop your clogs you could find yourself sitting next to Hitler or Attila the Hun:D Hmm ... I had a dream about that once. It had been a long drive and I had parked my pickup truck along the coast of the sea and began to take a nap. And I found myself flying up in the mountains over these green fields and wondering what it was about.

And I began to feel a sense of superiority and pride well up over the horizon. And lo and behold here was Uncle Adolf, welcoming me into his parlor, I was but a lad, as he began to cajole with me, and persuade me into thinking how important it was to join the Nazi party. Indeed, I was a prime candidate in his eyes.

This went on for what seemed to be an hour, with him giving me the whole spiel on the glory of the party, until finally I said, "Oh, well alright!" just to get him to stop. At which point he turned into a snappy black wiry poodle dog, quivering in anticipation as I began to pet it. Then all of a sudden I was wide awake in the front of my pickup truck, saying, "Whoa, what the heck was that all about!"

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hmm ... I had a dream about that once. It had been a long drive and I had parked my pickup truck along the coast of the sea and began to take a nap. And I found myself flying up in the mountains over these green fields and wondering what it was about.

And I began to feel a sense of superiority and pride well up over the horizon. And lo and behold here was Uncle Adolf, welcoming me into his parlor, I was but a lad, as he began to cajole with me, and persuade me into thinking how important it was to join the Nazi party. Indeed, I was a prime candidate in his eyes.

This went on for what seemed to be an hour, with him giving me the whole spiel on the glory of the party, until finally I said, "Oh, well alright!" just to get him to stop. At which point he turned into a snappy black wiry poodle dog, quivering in anticipation as I began to pet it. Then all of a sudden I was wide awake in the front of my pickup truck, saying, "Whoa, what the heck was that all about!" In case anyone's interested I've reposted this on a new thread, What are Dreams Made of? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35297)

[exarch]

Are we ignoring the questions again Iacchus?
Let me sum them up for you:

1. Since nobody has witnessed the soul yet, why would we assume it to exist or be real? Any more real than a pink unicorn or a greater vampire wombat for that matter?

Just admit that you don't *know* the soul exists (since you can't know), but merely want to believe it does because you're afraid it really will all be finished once you die.

By Iacchus
Perhaps, but as matter begins with energy, and returns to energy, this is very much how our spirit works. First we are born into this world, with spirits (or souls), and when we die, our body decomposes and our energy (spirits) returns back to where it came. And, much in the way a circle completes itself where it begins, everything begins with and ends with, the spirit. So take your pick (about which came first).2. That is what you believe. Do you have anything to found that belief upon? Is there any real world observance that makes you so sure everything begins and ends with "the soul"?

3. ... do people in a coma have a soul? Or people with serious brain injuries who have become vegetables? Are they still conscious? Has their soul forsaken them?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by exarch

Are we ignoring the questions again Iacchus?
Let me sum them up for you:

1. Since nobody has witnessed the soul yet, why would we assume it to exist or be real? Any more real than a pink unicorn or a greater vampire wombat for that matter? Who's nobody? Something that's other than human? And, while science may not understand it, souls do belong to human beings. This is why you need to question people who do understand such things, which apparently science hasn't, so that you might begin to develop a general consesus about it.


Just admit that you don't *know* the soul exists (since you can't know), but merely want to believe it does because you're afraid it really will all be finished once you die.What the heck are you talking about? While I'm afraid your inability to see it for yourself just won't work.


2. That is what you believe. Do you have anything to found that belief upon? Is there any real world observance that makes you so sure everything begins and ends with "the soul"?No, this is your "belief" about me which, is entirely unfounded. Now isn't that funny?


3. ... do people in a coma have a soul? Or people with serious brain injuries who have become vegetables? Are they still conscious? Has their soul forsaken them? Does a radio which is impaired tend to amplify the signal?

Oh, and please note that I responded to your reply, okay? ;)

[exarch]

Iacchus is dancing around again.

Shall we try a second time?

1. Why would we assume the soul to exist or be real at all? Any more real than a pink unicorn or a greater vampire wombat for that matter?2. Do you have anything to found your belief upon? Is there any real world observance that makes you so sure everything begins and ends with "the soul"?Originally posted by Iacchus
Does a radio which is impaired tend to amplify the signal?No, it doesn't. So what you're saying is that unconscious people don't have a soul. Noted.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Who's nobody? Something that's other than human? And, while science may not understand it, souls do belong to human beings. This is why you need to question people who do understand such things, which apparently science hasn't, so that you might begin to develop a general consesus about it.

What the heck are you talking about? While I'm afraid your inability to see it for yourself just won't work.
Iacchus, are you having trouble understanding Exarch's question? It seems quite straightforward to me. You are making claims for something, and saying that Exarch (and by extension, I) are unable to see it. This implies that you are able to see it. Ok, what is the evidence you see? On what basis are you so adamant about your claim? What have you seen that we have not?

[Dancing David]

My radio station thinks your radio station is stupid! So There!
NYAH!

:p

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by Riddick

The cause of that is Satan.

Cop-out!

My husband and I were just talking about this concept this morning. The fact is that every religion that we know of has some explanation for evil.

It's like we can't just accept that some people are good, some are evil, and most of us are just struggling along somewhere in between. We have to excuse the evil by saying "Satan (or insert other bad deity's name here) makes people do bad things."

If we ourselves occasionally give in to our baser temptations and do something we know to be wrong, we can't say we just had a moment of weakness. We have to place it somewhere else by saying, "Satan (or insert other bad deity's name here) made me do it."

We can't understand why bad things happen so we have to personify them by saying, "Satan (or insert other bad deity's name here) caused it."

It just reinforces to me the idea that deities are all just made up to help us deal with things we don't understand or don't want to cope with. Since almost all cultures have this in common, it seems obvious that it's just a human construct made up to fulfill a basic human need.

Why can't we just grow up and accept that there are bad people. That sometimes even good people do bad things. And that sometimes bad things happen to good people. Period. End of story. No invisible supernatural mythical being necessary.

Until we accept our own very human culpability in the existence of evil, we will do nothing to stop it. Because as long as we can excuse it by blaming it on the invisible bad guy, we don't have to take responsibility for it. How can we mere mortals be expected to stop evil when it's caused by Satan (or insert other bad deity's name here)?

"All that is good comes from God. All that is bad comes from Satan." Such oversimplification defies introspection. And such naivete rarely leads to progress.

wolfgirl

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by max
If we all believe in evolution I wonder if the dying state of the planet has been caused because we intervene the whole time. If evolution truly means the survival of the fiittest, we have not kept to that theory in that we assist the poorer countries. Going by Darwins law, we should be looking after our own needs and sod the weakest. Throughout the centuries had we kept to that law I suspect there would be no africans and many other third world people would have become extinct. If we'd have all stayed in our own country from the beginning, I wonder which would still be populated today? Which would have been killed off by disease and poverty.
Your interpetation of "Darwin's Law," as you put it, is nothing short of a restatement of "social darwinism." Social darwinism was a horrible 19th century corruption of Darwin's theory. Your post also displays some incredibly racist, culturalist and strangley isolationist assumptions.

[max]

well tell me how else third world countries survive if it's not the west's charity donations. They'd just die off in the droughts.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by max
well tell me how else third world countries survive if it's not the west's charity donations. They'd just die off in the droughts.
Tell us how countries factor in evolutionary theory.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by max
well tell me how else third world countries survive if it's not the west's charity donations. They'd just die off in the droughts.

max,
This is an interesting thought about evolution, but it is important to remember that evolution applies solely to the survival of the individual. When we look at societal and cultural adaptation, it always does things that are counter to biological 'survival of those that breed'.

The treatment of people with myopiua and bad vision is a classic example. In the ancient past someone with a severe vision disorder would not have as much reproductive sucsess unless they aquired sedentary strategies of survival.

The treatment of polio and measles is anothere xample. The ability of our populatio to resist measles is going to decrease because we do no allow one quarter of all people who get the infection to die.

What you are discussing is another issue, frequentlt famins is caused as much by the political distribution of food as it is by actual drought. frequently an area will have enough food, but the governmenet will not distribute it.

I suppose that the US could have also not allowed for Lend/Lease when the Jerries turned from France to the blessed isle.

Humans help each other, it is what we do.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by max
[b]If we all believe in evolution I wonder if the dying state of the planet has been caused because we intervene the whole time. If evolution truly means the survival of the fiittest, we have not kept to that theory in that we assist the poorer countries. Going by Darwins law, we should be looking after our own needs and sod the weakest. Throughout the centuries had we kept to that law I suspect there would be no africans and many other third world people would have become extinct. If we'd have all stayed in our own country from the beginning, I wonder which would still be populated today? Which would have been killed off by disease and poverty.
Max, evolution is theory which describes change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

"Survival of the fittest" is not an Ethical Theory (this is specifically called the Naturalistic Fallacy which means things which occur in Nature describe how politics or ethics ought to be... you might be familiar with the Naturalistic Fallacy if you have ever heard "homosexuality is immoral because its unnatural... when was the last time you saw two animals in a homosexual relationship"). "Survival of the Fittest" describes how things are, not how they ought to be.

Humans, being social, improve their fitness through cooperation with other people. Even if survival of the fittest were taken as a basis for morals, it would imply treating other people well.


A little information on Social Darwinism:

The source of social Darwinism was not Darwin but Herbert Spencer and the tradition Protestant nonconformism going back to Hobbes via Malthus. Spencer's ideas of evolution were Lamarckian. The only real connection between Darwinism and social Darwinism is the name.

Evolutionary theory shows us that the long term survival of a species is strongly linked with its genetic variability. Many Social Darwinist programs advocate minimizing genetic variability, thus reducing chances of long term survival in the event of environmental change. Understanding of evolution should then rebuke any attempt at social Darwinism if the long term survival of humanity is treated as a goal.

[Yahweh]

I wonder where Iaachus has been...

According to his profile, his last post was on 02-15-2004 04:46 AM (CST) in the A Literal Bible? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870316443#post1870316443) thread...

[max]

Yahweh
Thanks for info. It was just a thought, no more than that

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by max
Yahweh
Thanks for info. It was just a thought, no more than that
One is reminded of Mark Twain's Yankee's comment to the Page in King Arthur's Court.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I wonder where Iaachus has been...

According to his profile, his last post was on 02-15-2004 04:46 AM (CST) in the A Literal Bible? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870316443#post1870316443) thread... What point would the word "mystery" serve if we had no soul? This is the soul's "quest" for meaning.

Try looking Iacchus up (spelled with one "a" by the way) in the Mysteries of Eleusis (http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/e/eleusinian_mysteries.html) ...

Or perhaps it was only the shout we have heard? or, perhaps something else, the personification of that shout? ... if in fact we have a soul that is. ;)

The soul is that part of us which journeys into realms unknown, and partakes in "the adventure."

So, aside from the fact that I don't really belong to this crowd, why is it that I feel like I was never here? (something I always used to say when I got off of work). Hmm, sounds reminiscent of the song by U2 ... "Only to be with you ... Only to be with you" ... "and I still haven't found what I'm looking for" ...

So which part do you think felt like it was never here? No doubt that part which associates itself with "meaning" and is least understood. And yet, what else could you expect from "me?" Ever get the feeling that nobody ever listens to "you?" Actually this is where the "soul's journey" begins, when you begin to experience feelings of being alone and isolated.

Which brings up the part about the cat which has three names: 1. the name his master calls him ... 2. his scientific name, and ... 3. the name that nobody knows but the cat himself. Hmm, could that what be what they mean by, "The cat got your tongue?" ;)

[Iacchus]

Now that's strange, I just realized this was the 140th post of the thread here ... which brings up the "reading" I gave to Humphreys in the thread, Timeless Existence (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870309479#post1870309479) ...


Originally posted by Iacchus

Well, being your 140th post, it brings to mind Highway 140 in Southern Oregon, which begins in White City, at the northeast end of the Rogue Valley just north of Medford, and traverses up over the Cascade Mountains and ends up in Klamath Falls, Oregon. While I remember making this trip way back when and it was kind of interesting. 20 years ago? Wow! For reference to the Rogue Valley here, please refer to my link on the The New Church (http://www.dionysus.org/x1201.html).

The numer 140 is also Rachel's (14) (http://www.dionysus.org/x0404.html#102) number ... 14 x 9 + "14" = 140 or, 14 x 10 = 140 ... and signifes the completion of the masuline side in the woman and in effect signifies true love (14) ... where the mans' father (1) plus the woman's mother (4) equals true love (14). For more clarification here please refer to my link on The Marriage (http://www.dionysus.org/x0301.html).

That's about all I can say for now, except that I had been thinking about the significance of Highway 140 for some time (and gave it up some time ago), but hadn't really come up with anything. So maybe something will come out of that? Also, since 140 = 10 x 14, as well as 14 x 9 + "14," I suspect it might have something to do with the relationship between the numbers 9 and 10, and possibly 14 and 0 ... i.e., 14 x 10 + "0" = 140.

Hey, I just noticed that the last three digits of this post are "479," which is pretty significant in and of itself. While I had referred to this in the post regarding Mercutio's number (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35113) and in the post, You want more Proof (2)? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33588)

I also noticed this was my 1010th post and, when adding its reciprocal, "0101," you get 1111 ... which corresponds to the resurrection of the Two Witnesses (i.e., 10 + 01 = 11) in Revelation 11:11 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+11)

7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them. - Revelation 11:7-11 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+11)Also note that verse "1111" of Euripes - The Bacchae (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33760) describes the fall of Dionysus' cousin Pentheus.

While I also describe my own personal incident here in Chapter x1111 (http://www.dionysus.org/x1111.html) of my book. And, since Humphreys never got back to me -- hmm ... maybe the number 140 signifies the "soul's quest" for meaning? -- with this being the 141st post, it's funny how it occurred to me at 7:49 am this morning, as concurs with the 141st post in the thread, Upchurch's angry rant (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870289128#post1870289128) ...

Originally posted by Iacchus

Wow, that's amazing!

While I can see you're getting dangerously close to 666 too!

Hmm ... Another interesting coincidence ... 120 + 021 = 141 ... Now there are those darned arbitrary 0's again!

40 x 3 (+) 3 x 07 = 141

47 + 74 = 141

Hmm ... While here it is I had just gotten back from Lincoln City, Oregon, and I was driving down 141st Street, with a row of cars parked alongside it (alonside of a car dealership), and there it was, what appeared to be a brand new silver Lincoln Continental and, on the license plate it said ... WAR 749.

And of course 7 x 49 = 343 ... or, 320 + 023 = 343.

Now isn't that strange?

Hmm ... I wonder if four eggs in a basket don't in fact look like four Zero's? What, another sock puppet!?

[Atlas]

Geez Iacchus,

It's good to have you back. I would've completely missed that.

Now I'm thinking, What are the chances that everybody else would've too. An amazing coincidence - multiplied.

[Iacchus]

Oh, and one other thing ... from the thread, Upchurch's angry rant (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870289211#post1870289211) ...


Originally posted by Iacchus

Oh, did you know that 74 x 9 = 666?

Wow! Amazing! And by the way Tricky, I just noticed your last post was 6479 ... :p

[Starrman]

And by the way Tricky, I just noticed your last post was 6479 ...

Oh my, I read this post at exactly 12:28! The soul exists after all!

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Starrman


Oh my, I read this post at exactly 12:28! The soul exists after all!

Wow, and I just read this at 12:34. 1+2+3+4 = 10, which is exactly when I had my first oobe. Can't tell you whose bod I was in at the time, but I was precocious. We were in a VW beetle at the time. My first bugasm.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Wow, and I just read this at 12:34. 1+2+3+4 = 10, which is exactly when I had my first oobe. Can't tell you whose bod I was in at the time, but I was precocious. We were in a VW beetle at the time. My first bugasm. In case anyone's interested -- well then again maybe not? -- I just started a new thread, The Quest for Meaning (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36204) ...

[Dancing David]

Wow, now I really undetand thge role of god in evoluition.