WHY THE IDEA OF A GOD IS ABSURD
jerry and judy
<abuse...@uunet.com> wrote:
> "Bilal" <def...@tiscalinet.it> wrote in message
> news:840oec$baa$1...@pegasus.tiscalinet.it...
> >
> > Skeptic ha scritto nel messaggio ...
> > >
> > >"jimmy"
> > >> People mistakenly think that God "MUST" fulfil the wishes of every
> > >> human being.It is God's decision which prevails not the decision or
> > >> wishes of human beings.In wordly life, parents do not fulfil all the
> > >> wishes of all children on all occasions as they know best. God created
> > >> life and death probably to make room on this earth for future
> > >> generation. We should be thankful to God for the opportunity to see
> > >> this world. For every human being lucky to see the world there are
> > >> ten of million who did not make it (Disbelieve, ask a doctor).
> > >
> > >For every alleged god lucky enough to have created a universe there are
> ten
> > >of million who did not make it. ....
> > >
> > >Etc.
> > >Etc.
> > >Etc. Same line of "reasoning."
> > >(Disbelieve? Ask whoever created the first creator. And who created that
> > >one? Or the one before that?)
> > >
> >
> >
> > What could we expect from someone who discusses on a religion NG with a
> > handle like "Skeptic"? Foolishness, that's it (to create the first creator
> > is logical fallacy anyway),
> >
> > Bilal
> > ___________________________________________________
> >
> > "Fain would they extinguish Allah's Light with their mouths,
> > but Allah will not allow but that His Light should be perfected
> > - even though the unbelievers may detest it." (9:32)
> > ___________________________________________________
> >
>
> What could a skeptic expect in a message cross-posted to alt.atheism from a
> true beliver in the alleged "Allah" that he would not know that the real
> fallacy is to conclude that some alleged "creator" exists when there is
> nothing to corroborate the foolish assertion. Where did it come from if it
> was not created? If it did not need to be created, than neither did anything
> else.
Genetically programmed death arose and was selected for, by still
primitive life 1.1 billion years ago. The death of individuals speeds up
rates of evolution and
thereby enhances a species' chance of survival in the long run. Modern
medicine will soon be able to slow down or even stop this genetic
programming, which in a complicated way will probably destroy belief in
religion and accelerate the end of our species. It's illogical, but we
think we want to live forever.
We've inherited this 'ability to die' from our single-celled ancestors as
a survival advantage over other competing
populations. The faster generations turned over, the more quickly
new improvements in metabolism and reproduction etc. could be
incorporated into the primitive developing forms. It has had the
effect of speeding up all evolution immeasurably ever since, but
early on it also kept population levels in check until predator-prey
balances could arise.Ý Without genetically programmed death,
whole ecosystems would have been in risk of collapse, and we
definitely wouldn't be here!
Western religion is _in synch_ with our evolutionarily-derived behavior,
and it's probably even a predictable part of our total cultural evolution.
Especially, our culture's more intense recent (within the last 100
thousand years) struggle with genetically programmed death.
Most religions offer their answers about death, but Christianity is
totally immersed in death! From Joseph and John the Baptist, on through
the story to Judas, Jesus and James, all these deaths have a different and
an integral meaning in the Christian story. You can throw in Herod's
'slaughter of the innocents' and the executions of Peter and Paul etc.
This type of storytelling seems to be unique to Christology. Do other
religions try to 'tie up' what they're proclaiming in this manner (with so
many deaths of individuals and each death having a different metaphorical
meaning)?
In addition to the fixation with death there's the paternity issues, the
'shocking' rejection of the family, the need for blood sacrifices,
kingship issues, the mix of love and acceptance with the 'sword', the
self-assured leader
and the righteous hero, the victim and the victimizers, and the acceptable
hierarchy of necessary beings (gods). All these are expanded, intensified and
specialized versions of the concerns that we've inherited from our ape
ancestors.
Oh yes, Christianity is definitely the TRUE religion! It's what all
religion aspires to be!, to be enticing and relevant to the authentic
human animal. And if it spurs us to act more unthinkingly apelike, for
the better OR for the worse, then it has succeeded!
Jerry
PZ Myers
Nonsense. Cell death was not selected for because of such remote
intangibles as the possibility that it would speed up evolution or
enhance the survival of the species.
Cell death is just another kind of morphogenetic process. It was
advantageous to *individuals* because it was a useful tool for shaping
development.
>Modern
>medicine will soon be able to slow down or even stop this genetic
>programming,
Don't be so sure. You are confusing a couple of different issues: 1)
programmed cell death, and 2) senescence. I don't think you are talking
about (1), and (2) is currently a bit overhyped. There is this weird
idea floating around in the medical literature that senescence is a
specific, internally programmed feature of our cells that could be
simply turned off -- but there is absolutely no evidence to support this
contention, and it doesn't even make sense. Things rather naturally fall
to pieces over time, and senescence probably reflects that same tendency
in cells. It's obvious that cells have evolved mechanisms, sometimes
quite elaborate mechanisms, to fight off the generic ravages of time,
but that those mechanisms involve compromises with other processes that
we tend to favor -- an anti-agatic mechanism that consumed every bit of
energy we might have to ward off wrinkling wouldn't be particularly
useful.
I think medicine *will* be able to enhance cellular mechanisms to
prolong lifespans, and maybe even maintain youthfulness longer. It won't
be as simple and global as turning off some switch that forces aging. It
will also involve unknown tradeoffs. Maybe there will be a drug that
keeps people looking 20 indefinitely, but at the price of a 10- or
100-fold increase in your chances of getting cancer...would it be worth
taking?
>which in a complicated way will probably destroy belief in
>religion and accelerate the end of our species. It's illogical, but we
>think we want to live forever.
>
>We've inherited this 'ability to die' from our single-celled ancestors as
>a survival advantage over other competing
>populations. The faster generations turned over, the more quickly
>new improvements in metabolism and reproduction etc. could be
>incorporated into the primitive developing forms. It has had the
>effect of speeding up all evolution immeasurably ever since, but
>early on it also kept population levels in check until predator-prey
>balances could arise.İ Without genetically programmed death,
>whole ecosystems would have been in risk of collapse, and we
>definitely wouldn't be here!
Ick. This simply is not the way evolution could work.
I don't know what the heck you are talking about here, but seeing that
you've begun with absurd and unwarranted premises, I don't see much
point in trying to figure it out.
--
PZ Myers
jerry and judy
<my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
> In article <jerbidoc-271...@lc0189.zianet.com>,
> jerb...@zianet.com (jerry and judy) wrote:
<snip>
> >
> >Genetically programmed death arose and was selected for, by still
> >primitive life 1.1 billion years ago. The death of individuals speeds up
> >rates of evolution and
> >thereby enhances a species' chance of survival in the long run.
>
> Nonsense. Cell death was not selected for because of such remote
> intangibles as the possibility that it would speed up evolution or
> enhance the survival of the species.
More evolutionary change is what you're left with...
> Cell death is just another kind of morphogenetic process. It was
> advantageous to *individuals* because it was a useful tool for shaping
> development.
How do you differentiate *individuals* from the species in this case?
> >Modern
> >medicine will soon be able to slow down or even stop this genetic
> >programming,
>
> Don't be so sure. You are confusing a couple of different issues: 1)
> programmed cell death, and 2) senescence. I don't think you are talking
> about (1), and (2) is currently a bit overhyped. There is this weird
> idea floating around in the medical literature that senescence is a
> specific, internally programmed feature of our cells that could be
> simply turned off -- but there is absolutely no evidence to support this
> contention, and it doesn't even make sense. Things rather naturally fall
> to pieces over time, and senescence probably reflects that same tendency
> in cells. It's obvious that cells have evolved mechanisms, sometimes
> quite elaborate mechanisms, to fight off the generic ravages of time,
> but that those mechanisms involve compromises with other processes that
> we tend to favor -- an anti-agatic mechanism that consumed every bit of
> energy we might have to ward off wrinkling wouldn't be particularly
> useful.
Separated cells have recently been *induced* to reproduce healthily many
more times than is natural in mice. But sure, there's a limit.
>
> I think medicine *will* be able to enhance cellular mechanisms to
> prolong lifespans, and maybe even maintain youthfulness longer. It won't
> be as simple and global as turning off some switch that forces aging. It
> will also involve unknown tradeoffs. Maybe there will be a drug that
> keeps people looking 20 indefinitely, but at the price of a 10- or
> 100-fold increase in your chances of getting cancer...would it be worth
> taking?
>
> >which in a complicated way will probably destroy belief in
> >religion and accelerate the end of our species. It's illogical, but we
> >think we want to live forever.
> >
> >We've inherited this 'ability to die' from our single-celled ancestors as
> >a survival advantage over other competing
> >populations. The faster generations turned over, the more quickly
> >new improvements in metabolism and reproduction etc. could be
> >incorporated into the primitive developing forms. It has had the
> >effect of speeding up all evolution immeasurably ever since, but
> >early on it also kept population levels in check until predator-prey
> >balances could arise.Ý Without genetically programmed death,
> >whole ecosystems would have been in risk of collapse, and we
> >definitely wouldn't be here!
>
> Ick. This simply is not the way evolution could work.
Well, that's specific...(?).
It wouldn't be difficult to figure out, if you'd been following this thread.
Thanks Paul,
Jerry
> PZ Myers
B377...@webtv.net
Christianity, Jewish, Baptist, etc. Even though I was raised as a
Catholic/Christian I now know that what is more important than the
labelled religion, is the beliefs that you draw for yourself when
reading the bible.
If I draw my own conclusion from something I read from the bible
and live by it, God will forgive me if I had come to the wrong
conclusion as he knows my heart was in the right place. Will he still
forgive me if I live by a wrong belief because I blindly followed a
cabled religion and did not think for myself?
You can take any chapter from the bible and every religion will
give you a different interpretation. So which one do you believe?
Well, your religion's interpretation of course. So then I ask you: do
you actually have a belief in the bible or do you have a belief that
whatever your labelled religion tells you must be correct.
It is my feeling that God will judge you on what you have come to
believe through your own readings and interpretations, not what has been
taught to you over and over and over.......
If you are truly living by the bible and the words of God and
Jesus, then you will find inconsistencies in your religion, regardless
of what it is.
Religions are now faltering to the lifestyles of todays societies.
They teach only the parts of the bible that are still applicable and
turn their heads from the teachings that interfere with the lifestyles
of their perish. Remember way back when, when divorces were NOT allowed
by the Catholic community. . . . . . . . .until one of the Kennedy's
wanted one? No it's okay. How convenient.
Obviously, if you believe that Christianity is the ONE religion,
then you haven't been doing much thinking for yourself. You have only
been listening to your minister and his interpretations. You truly
haven't read the bible for yourself.
Funny how I don't remember God making mention of Christians,
Catholics, Lutherans, etc for the day of final armageddon. I only
recall him mentioning Jews and gentiles. How ironic!
Matt Silberstein
| I do not label myself to any one religion, be it Catholic,
|Christianity, Jewish, Baptist, etc.
[snip]
| If you are truly living by the bible and the words of God and
|Jesus, then you will find inconsistencies in your religion, regardless
|of what it is.
I'll give you a hint. You may be Catholic or Baptist, but you are not
Jewish. HTH. HAND.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
----------------------------------------
You were under the impression
That when you were walking forward
You would end up further onward
But things ain't quite that simple
Pete Townsand - Quadraphenia
B377...@webtv.net
then you will find inconsistencies in your religion, regardless |of what
it is.
I'll give you a hint. You may be Catholic or Baptist, but you are not
Jewish. HTH. HAND.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
----- I can see why you responded with what you did. My statement
however was an error (typo) on my part. The word "not" should be
inserted after the words "If you are ___ truly living . . . .
This was to illustrate that those who do not read and attempt to
draw their own beliefs from the bible will fall victim to stereo-type
religions where their teachings are usually narrow minded and taken out
of context. Do not take take this the wrong way, I am not accusing all
religions of ignorance. Rather I find that they find one denomination
in the bible that they live by and the rest is just extra reading.
Does this correction make sense?
And of course I'm not Jewish, wasn't that the point of my posting,
and my opening line? I do not want to be labelled with a particular
religion. Why can't a person simply read the bible and place their
faith in what they have read and their personal interpretations?
Matt Silberstein
|If you are truly living by the bible and the words of God and |Jesus,
|then you will find inconsistencies in your religion, regardless |of what
|it is.
|
|
|I'll give you a hint. You may be Catholic or Baptist, but you are not
|Jewish. HTH. HAND.
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
|----- I can see why you responded with what you did. My statement
|however was an error (typo) on my part. The word "not" should be
|inserted after the words "If you are ___ truly living . . . .
Nope, you missed it again. And you snipped out the first line which
would have helped. You make comments about living by the words of
Jesus, that makes you a non-Jew.
| This was to illustrate that those who do not read and attempt to
|draw their own beliefs from the bible will fall victim to stereo-type
|religions where their teachings are usually narrow minded and taken out
|of context. Do not take take this the wrong way, I am not accusing all
|religions of ignorance. Rather I find that they find one denomination
|in the bible that they live by and the rest is just extra reading.
| Does this correction make sense?
| And of course I'm not Jewish, wasn't that the point of my posting,
|and my opening line? I do not want to be labelled with a particular
|religion. Why can't a person simply read the bible and place their
|faith in what they have read and their personal interpretations?
Your line was "I do not label myself to any one religion, be it
Catholic, Christianity, Jewish, Baptist, etc. " Your views might or
might not fit some sort of Christianity, it does not fit Judaism. You
are not simply an unlabeled person who might be Jewish, you are a
person who belongs in the non-Jewish category.
Sherilyn
jerb...@zianet.com (jerry and judy) wrote:
> In article <myers-9B20AF....@netnews.netaxs.com>, PZ Myers
> <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <jerbidoc-271...@lc0189.zianet.com>,
> > jerb...@zianet.com (jerry and judy) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > >Genetically programmed death arose and was selected for, by still
> > >primitive life 1.1 billion years ago. The death of individuals
speeds up
> > >rates of evolution and
> > >thereby enhances a species' chance of survival in the long run.
> >
> > Nonsense. Cell death was not selected for because of such remote
> > intangibles as the possibility that it would speed up evolution or
> > enhance the survival of the species.
>
> More evolutionary change is what you're left with...
>
> > Cell death is just another kind of morphogenetic process. It was
> > advantageous to *individuals* because it was a useful tool for
shaping
> > development.
>
> How do you differentiate *individuals* from the species in this case?
The selection process is species-blind, it can only operate by favoring
an individual possessing a characteristic (usually in competition with
other members of the species). Selection processes are quite capable
of favoring a characteristic that would improve an individual's
reproductive fitness at the expense of overall species fitness--the
propensity of many male animals to kill off the perfectly fit offspring
of their mates' previous couplings, for instance, does wonders for the
propagation of the male's genes but represents nothing but a lost
investment for the species as a whole.
[...]
> > >
> > >We've inherited this 'ability to die' from our single-celled
ancestors as
> > >a survival advantage over other competing
> > >populations. The faster generations turned over, the more quickly
> > >new improvements in metabolism and reproduction etc. could be
> > >incorporated into the primitive developing forms. It has had the
> > >effect of speeding up all evolution immeasurably ever since, but
> > >early on it also kept population levels in check until predator-
prey
> > >balances could arise.İ Without genetically programmed death,
> > >whole ecosystems would have been in risk of collapse, and we
> > >definitely wouldn't be here!
> >
> > Ick. This simply is not the way evolution could work.
>
> Well, that's specific...(?).
See above. The ecosystem, or lack thereof, is a matter of supreme
indifference for evolution.
--
Sherilyn
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
SUDSM
the following, and this time reply.
GENESIS LITERALLY
As remarked in other posts I have noted that there have been several
comments about reading Genesis "literally" when all that can be read in any
English version [e.g. the KJV as cited here] is a text which has been
severely distorted by scribes trying to make it fit what they "knew" from
science at the time. Thus we see "firmament" which was read for Hebrew
RQIO which means "expansion", but that did not fit the scientific knowledge
of that day. So it was read as "firmament" because it was then believed
that the fixed stars were fixed because they were in firm crystal spheres.
The root of RQIO means "to beat" because that is how a "firm" lump of metal
was expanded into sheets. So an excuse for "firmament" could be found in
the Hebrew, though no one today agrees with that translation.
They were right to read it to fit science -- as they did read it --
but to read it literally NOW it must be read to fit what we NOW "know" from
science, at least it should be read that way as much as possible. No other
reading can now be literal.
Here then is some of the cosmology found in Genesis, when it is read
literally from the HEBREW Massoretic Torah [which has no pointing].
Unfortunately most people now read the Bible looking for problems, instead
of trying to make it fit present scientific knowledge, as it used to be
read. The following translation/interpretation is in the old tradition
that it should make sense, as much as possible, with respect to present
scientific knowledge, ignoring some of the "knowledge" that scribes have
added, or that we just don't [yet] understand. The translation/
interpretation is still, of course, accurate and faithful to the Hebrew as
we now understand it! Thus there is no modern "Big Bang" theory because
there is none in the Hebrew [as I read it], though Gerald Schroeder, author
of "Genesis and the Big Bang", might disagree.
Since there is no pointing in the Torah I have had to use a translit-
eration that ignores pointing. The transliteration, however, should be
obvious to those who read Hebrew. Capital letters are used [since Hebrew
has no upper and lower case letters], with a lower-case modifier where
necessarry. It is, however, only for those who wish to reconstruct the
Hebrew where I have used English letters. All others can skip the
transliterations.
The trouble with the cosmology in Genesis starts with mistranslating
Gen 1:1 and 2. Gen 1:1 should [from the Hebrew] read:
1 In beginnings Elohim cut the spaces and the mass.
As Fenton ["The Holy Bible in Modern English"] has remarked: "* * * It
is curious that all translators from the Septuagint have this word * * *
B'RESHITH in the singular, although in the Hebrew it is plural."
It is true that since the Septuagint [c. 200 BC] the opening word
[BREShITh has always been translated as singular though the plural
[beginnings] is faithful to the Hebrew. Then every day [YUM] is one of the
beginnings, each of which goes from "EVENing to dayBREAK, i.e. from
evenness [imposed by darkness, cHShK] to less evenness due to light [AUR,
that breaks things up into distinguishable items]. Thus each day is a
"beginning" [that still continues] and is represented by what we would call
a lowering of entropy or they called a lessening of evenness [chaos] which
is the same thing. And each day [YUM] is a period, even an eon, of
creative [i.e. entropy-lowering] evolution that followed the creation of
the spaces [lit. the heights] and the mass [lit. the compact]. Lowering
entropy is always creative, according to modern science. So, according to
the Bible, each "beginning" was a creative evolution period or day [YUM] of
development.
Then Gen 1:2 [again from the Hebrew] reads:
2 But the mass was formless and powerless with darkness upon faces of
chaos and the spirit of Elohim brooding upon faces of the flowings.
[avoiding MIM = waters, as will be explained later] That is the condition
before the start of the creative evolution that began with the formation of
a region of light [Gen 1:3] which, of course, subsequently coalesced into
stars and other luminaries [e.g. galaxies], as still happens.
Since I was translating the Hebrew, in which there is no trace of the
modern Big Bang model, I did not add it [or anything else] to the Hebrew.
They seem to have pictured the creation as a universe of unknown [hence not
zero] size consisting of mass [?particles?] in a uniformly random [ergodic]
distribution. It is assumed "particles" because that is the only way we
can visualize any kind of distribution of the mass of the universe. And in
a uniformly random distribution about half the particles were approaching
one another, and the rest were receding from one another. But, as things
are described in terms of a hypothetical [human] observer, for familiar
simplicity, he would "see" about half the particles approaching him, and
the rest receding from him, regardless of what the particles were doing
with respect to one another.
Particles receding from him would recede forever, but not so those
approaching him. They would eventually pass him and the universe would go
through a minimum volume and would then finally have all particles receding
from him and the universe would be seen as expanding. The so-called "Big
Bang" would depend on how small was that minimum volume. If it was zero or
almost zero then the observed "Hubble expansion" would be a constant. Not
otherwise. It should be possible to calculate the minimum volume from
variations in the Hubble expansion. Anyway, there is no modern "Big Bang"
[with its "Inflationary" start] theory in the Hebrew. And since this is
primarily a translation, and an accurate one, there is no "Big Bang",
"Inflationary", or other modern particle physics theory in it. If there
were any such theory, I'm sure I would have seen it.
A uniformly random [ergodic] distribution, as originally depicted,
would have no light that could be seen by any hypothetical observer. The
term "darkness" thus denotes a uniformity, or evenness, while the term
"day" [YUM, which means literally any period identified with the presence
of a characterizing property, such as light, dinosaurs, creation, or
anything else] denotes less evenness, due to the presence of light [AUR].
It seems to have been forgotten that in English the term "day" has also
LITERALLY meant any period at all, associated with a characterizing
property -- such as the rotation of a planet on its own axis. Our hour,
for example, is 1/24th of the time it takes our planet to rotate on its
axis relative to the sun, which is where our 24 hour day comes from. It
cannot ordinarily be observed because the period of sunlight [or darkness]
varies from winter to summer. The 24 hour period is sunset to sunset [or
evening to evening].
But each "beginning" is depicted as a day [YUM] extending from EVENing
[ORB] to dayBREAK [BQR], which by no stretch of the imagination can refer
to an earth day, though it has often been [wrongly] read that way. It is,
as the English words suggest, a period that extends from an evenness to a
separation or breaking, or as stated above, from an evenness to less
evenness, a lowering of entropy we would say. But entropy can never be
lowered says modern science. That is true, though it can be lowered and is
lowered on earth, by energy received from the sun. It is then the total
sun-earth entropy that can never be lowered. That total entropy can only
increase. As physicists say, therefore, when entropy on earth is lowered,
entropy is "exported" from the earth to the earth-sun system and space.
But, without an earth, that is presumably impossible since overall entropy
[chaos] cannot be decreased. What concerns us here is that each beginning
implies the presence of light [AUR] as a source of energy. In other words
light [AUR] MUST be the first beginning, as it is in the Bible [Gen 1:3]
Here is where Gen 1:2 becomes important. As of Gen 1:2 there
was no earth nor sun, hence the entropy on earth could not be lowered to
create light as there was no earth-sun system into which entropy could be
exported. So Gen 1:2 says "the spirit of Elohim was with [brooding upon
the faces of] the flowings. It is saying that even at the outset there
were flowings or streamings such that the evenness ["chaos"] COULD be
reduced [i.e. it was not completely even, or complete chaos] as fast-moving
particles could be separated from slower moving particles to create
separate COHESIVE regions of fast-moving particles, and it seems to have
been understood that a separate region of fast-moving particles would be
seen as a region of light. So it says [Gen 1:4] that Elohim separated the
light [fast-moving particles] from the darkness [slower moving particles].
In terms of physics that would lower the entropy [apparent evenness] of the
whole system, which like the initial creation of spaces and mass, is
inexplicable, without a Creator.
It is necessary here to point out many things that have been wrongly
taken for granted. The creation, for example, consists of spaces that
exist only as separations between non-spaces [e.g. mass particles]. Both
space and mass were therefore created together, and exist only by contrast
with one another. But, according to Einstein, mass and energy are the same
thing [the c squared in his familiar equation is only a number expressing
the ratio of units we have chosen]. In that case what was created was
energy. But it must be noted again that there was no planet such as earth
as of Gen 1:2, and the energy created could, at that point, do nothing
since there was overall darkness, an apparent evenness, or chaos. In other
words the energy in that state was formless and powerless [Gen 1:2]. The
words Night [LILH] and Day [YUM] keep the description in familiar terms,
but Night in Gen 1:2 is the created "even" condition of the universe before
the appearance of light, and of course it is described in terms of the now
familiar periods of darkness on earth that alternate with days. There is,
however, no alternation of night and day suggested anywhere in Gen 1:1-2.
After the creation of light in Gen 1:3, and its separation from the
darkness [chaos] in Gen 1:4, we come to a first day [YUM] when the Hebrew
says "it was evening and it was daybreak" a day one. But an earth day does
not extend from evening to daybreak. That is an earth night. We know that
at Jerusalem the calendar date was reckoned to change with the evening at
the time of Christ, starting a new date at evening, but evening to daybreak
was still an earth night, not an earth day. And the date-change was
followed by a varying period of darkness, short in Summer, long in Winter.
It approximated 12 hours of darkness followed by 12 hours of sunlight, only
at an equinox. There is no Hebrew word for what we call an "hour" and in
the KJV the word does not appear anywhere but in Daniel where it means only
at the "time" of. Both an earth night and an earth day were divided into
four "watches" since, before the Greeks and the Septuagint, there appears
to have been no concept of "hours".
In Gen 1:6 we come to the expansion [RQIO] of the universe or "flow-
ings". We have already noted that, with respect to a hypothetical observer
all particles [mass] must eventually recede from him. Expansion was there-
fore inevitable. But in Gen 1:6 we encounter a very special kind of expan-
sion, in which regions or "flowings" stayed together but receded from one
another. Here is about as close as we come to a description of galaxies
which, considering the generations of scribal hands it must have come
through, is quite remarkable. We now know, from modern astronomical sci-
ence that it is galaxies, not just stars, that we see in the heavens, and
Hubble showed that those galaxies are receding from us. That is precisely
the kind of expansion that Gen 1:6 calls for. So Gen 1:7 tells us that
Elohim made that kind of expansion ["firmament" in the KJV] which separated
our "waters", or flowings [our galaxy] below, from those above us. And the
whole space between us, filled as it is with stars and galaxies, Elohim
called the Heavens [Gen 1:8] so that it now becomes legitimate to speak of
the Heavens, which it was not in Gen 1:1, where the KJV is just plain wrong
to speak of heavens [or heaven].
In Gen 1:9 we come to the planets when the Hebrew reads:
9 And Elohim said the flowings will gather from under the heavens toward
a place, each, and the solid will be seen.
In the KJV it says "dry land" but there is nothing like that for the
"solids" or "non-flowing" in the Hebrew. And next we come to naming one of
the planets "Earth" in Gen 1:10 where the Hebrew reads:
10 * * * Elohim gave the name Earth to one of the solids, and the name
Waters to her gathered flowings.
As of Gen 1:10, but not before, it is legitimate to speak of the planet
earth, and of waters. The Hebrew [MIM] means the running or flowing and
applies to anything molten, not just molten ice which is water. Up to now,
therefore, I have avoided "waters" simply because there is no excuse for it
prior to Gen 1:10. That is the explanation for using "flowing" rather than
waters which first appear here.
When read and analyzed so literally it seems so reasonable that we
need go no further than Gen 1:2 to far surpass the knowledge presumed to
have existed at the time of a Moses and the Exodus, or before. Thus as
August Dilman has said:
But if, then, in the main, the author gives what has been
handed down by tradition, still the question arises: Whence
has this tradition its origin? To this formerly it was simply
answered, that it rested mainly on a special divine
revelation. And because in many respects the myths of the
peoples about the world's origin coincided with it, it was
assumed that such a revelation had been made to the earliest
men, to Adam, and that the various peoples had taken it with
them from their common ancestral home, but had also in many
ways modified and corrupted it, and that only the race of
Israel had preserved it in a pure, or relatively the purest
form. Dilman, A.: GENESIS (New York; p. 28)
We now have learned, however, that a great deal of knowledge long
preceded the time of the Exodus and so was quite possibly preserved in
traditions, or records, that were preserved by the Israelites. The Torah
then becomes a recording of those traditions, started by Moses, but "his"
only in the same sense that our English King James Version is attributed to
King James.
We have learned recently, for example, that:
Pythagoras of Samos (fl. 540-600 B.C.) learned on his travels in
Egypt and the East to identify the morning and evening stars, to
recognize the obliquity of the ecliptic, and to regard the earth as a
sphere freely poised in space.
"Astronomy" Enc. Brit. 14th edit. vol. 2 p. 583
The astronomy of the Pythagoreans was their most notable con-
tribution to scientific thought, and its importance lies in the
fact that they were the first to conceive the earth as a globe
self-supported in empty space, revolving with the other planets
round a central luminary. They thus anticipated the heliocentric
theory.
"Pythagoras" Enc. Brit. 11th edit. vol. 22 pp. 699-700
"Copernicus dedicated his book to Pope Paul III. In 1545, just
two years after Copernicus' book appeared, the Italian
theologian Giovanni Maria Tolosani, who was a close friend of
Pope Paul Ill's personal theologian, wrote: `The book by
Nicholas Copernicus of Torun was printed not long ago and
published in recent days. In it he tries to revive the teaching of
certain Pythagoreans concerning the Earth's motion, a teaching
which had died out in times long past. Nobody accepts it now
except Copernicus. . . . For it is stupid to contradict a belief
accepted by everyone over a very long time for extremely good
reasons, unless the naysayer uses more powerful and
incontrovertible proofs. Copernicus does not do this.' (Edward Rosen
"Three Copernican Treatises" 1984, pp. 188-89).
Of great interest is that Pythagoras wrongly asserted that there was a
central fire behind the sun, and the earth [and therefore the sun too]
orbited this central fire. Why this, though wrong, is interesting is that
it suggests that at some point it was known that though the earth's orbit
is a perfect circle, almost, it is slightly elliptical with the sun at one
of the foci of the ellipse . . . not quite the center, and helioCENTRIC is
really a misnomer.
Which still, of course, tells us nothing of how or where that knowl-
edge originated. And the more we have learned about early knowledge, the
more difficult it is to go with the modern presumption that everything
started with Sumer, Babylon, Egypt, or even Greece.
Certainly I believe that it was of completely human origins. But the
originators of it were [I believe] very advanced members of the so-called
"Adamic Kingdom, for whom God was, in accordance with the Torah:
Deut 4:12 And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the
fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude;
only [ye heard] a voice. * * *
Deut 4:15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; * * *
Deut 4:16 Lest ye corrupt [yourselves], and make you a graven
image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or
female,
Deut 4:17 The likeness of any beast that [is] on the earth, the
likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air,
Deut 4:18 The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground,
the likeness of any fish that [is] in the waters beneath the
earth:
Deut 4:19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when
thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, [even] all the
host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve
them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations
under the whole heaven.
manifested in the voice of words [symbols]. But with the law that "whatso-
ever Adam called [everything], that was the name thereof" [Gen 2:19] the
"whatsoever principle" of naming that prohibits dependence on [bowing down
to] or giving worth to [worship = worth shape] images and likenesses, is
the "divine inspiration" [lit. God in breathing] which is the key to HUMAN
language. It has come down to us as the second commandment, corrupted so
as to seem to only apply only to sculptures. But God, in the "Adamic
Kingdom" had no similitude other than HUMAN language.
Life and Evolution
We have now covered cosmology as far as the planets and Earth which
first appears [in the Hebrew] in Gen 1:10. The next verse, Gen 1:11,
begins the story of another beginning or day [YUM] which again still
continues. This time it is evolution on Earth, going from vegetation [or
algae] first appearing, to the seeding plants and fruits of today.
At this point [Gen 1:14-16] we come to the time when Elohim said there
would be lights in the skies, but WIOSh is translated as "made" rather than
"showed" [as in Deut. 34:12 where it is translated "showed"]. The sun, in
other words, was already present but could not be seen [by a hypothetical
human observer] through the earth's atmosphere. We now know that the moon
has stripped earth's atmosphere [and still does] which, otherwise, would
be as impenetrable as the atmosphere of Venus.
Skipping, because this is already too long, let me go directly to
"life" by which, of course, I mean human life. "Breathing" and flying and
all other forms of life had already been created [Gen 1-20-21], together
with sexual reproduction [Gen 1-22] as the fifth beginning or day [Gen 1-
23], from which devloped all manner of animal life, including cattle [hence
agriculture had already started] before the creation of Man [Adam], about
6000 or more years ago.
But no one seems to recognize that Human Life is a verbal phenomenon.
That, to me, says that all have missed the crucial role that language plays
in the development of Human Life. They write easily about it without once
pausing to realize that they live ONLY because they CAN write about it! I
am not talking about mere animation, metabolism, &c. those being important
prerequisites that preceded all forms of moving life, including Human Life,
but they are talking as though such prerequisites could be equated with
Human Life. That is not true!
Our ability to let anything whatsoever stand for anything [else]
whatsoever, is unique. But even that is only a prerequisite. It becomes
language, and Human Life, when it is enhanced by the rule against ascribing
worth to "images and likenesses". That rule is only some 6000 years old,
which is why "man" is recognized as only about 6000 years old, since only
then did Human language become creative when Man [Adam] adopted the rule
against "images and likenesses". For example: Human "BEING" is a
consequence of verbal comprehension [language] having developed our self-
consciousness -- "I AM!" [Ex. 3:14] -- though the English 1st person
pronoun "I" may be viewed as an "image and likeness" of the upright human
figure and, if so, it is then worthless as an element of human language.
There is, however, no image or likeness for "AMness" [the verb "to be"]
which, therefore, is CREATED by human language -- which also creates
"BEING" and Human life.
That, of course, has nothing to do with how we wish to treat POTENTIAL
human life. In law, a century or so ago, it was "infanticide" [not
"murder"] to kill an infant. Before that, potential human life was seen in
marriage, and divorce was prohibited [as murder "right to life" would now
say since today they want to equate abortion with murder. In time, if they
succeed, I suppose they will equate divorce too with murder since it
eliminates potential human life]. In any case, how we choose to view
potential human life or human "BEING" has nothing to do with when that
begins. It develops slowly after birth, as verbal comprehension and HUMAN
LANGUAGE develops.
Following the creation of Man is a list of all the things that have
been done for man [Gen 1:26-28] and ending with the first dietary law [Gen
1:29-30] but, due to a KJV error, this has been seriously misunderstood.
It inserts "I have given" [unnecessary] in the wrong place! If it is to be
inserted it should read:
30 And of every animal * * * which breathes in him the life of all green
vegetation [I have given] for food.
In other words we can eat flesh provided it is not flesh of meat eaters,
but only flesh of vegetarians. We still tend to follow that law. And, of
course, it must be remembered that the "God" [I] here, as always, is "the
voice of words" [Human language] the only manifestation of the unknown and
unknowable God. How then can we know that the unknown and unknwoable God
exists? We can't, BUT --
Physicist Paul Davies could write:
.
"The scientific world-view is clearly a product of the Western
theological world-view, although scientists today rarely appreciate the
theological origins of their assumptions."
.
Physics and our View of the World
edited by Jan Hilgevoord
Cambridge U. (1995)
ISBN 0 521 47680 1, p. 288
The initial assumptions (from Western theology) are;
There is one invariant (Eternal) set of laws (or "truth") but it is unknown
and unknowable since we cannot predict future findings (hence in that
sense, the Eternal [or "truth"] is transcendent), but the invariant
(Eternal) "reality" is the source of all knowledge (and, in that sense, it
is omniscient), also it is undefeatable (and, in that sense, is
omnipotent), also it is everywhere the same (and, in that sense, is
omnipresent). We have called that "Eternal, omniscient, omnipotent,
transcendent, and omnipresent entity "God", (capital G), and in Western
theology have recognized that God is manifested to us as "the Word" (i.e.
our unique ability to let anything whatsoever stand for anything [else]
whatsoever).
Those were, and still are, the basic assumptions of all rational
thinking (religion, or "science" as we now call it) and they are part of
what physicist Davies has referred to. What the average thinker on
religion [or science] overlooks is what Davies said above. We start with
the assumptions of Western theology, such as:
We assume that there is an ultimate "reality" that is invariant (i.e.
Eternal). And we assume, in empiricism, that the Eternal (or invariant)
reality is the ultimate source of *all* knowledge (i.e. is omniscient), and
that the laws in that Eternal reality cannot be defeated (i.e. are
omnipotent). One other assumption of Western theology is assiduously
avoided by some. We know that since we cannot predict results of future
observations or experiments the ultimate Eternal reality is forever unknown
and unknowable to us (i.e. is transcendent). The Copenhagen interpretation
of Quantum Mechanics denies the first assumption above, saying that "deep"
reality (i.e. ultimate reality) does not exist. But that, like Skinner's
Behaviorists denying consciousness, is meaningless verbiage. It is only a
way for Copenhagenists to say that they refuse to talk about deeper
problems than the (purely heuristic) equations of QM. Our theological
assumptions, therefore, still hold.
Our theological assumptions are:
1 the invariance of the laws of nature
2 that we can't know the results of future experiments
3 that empiricism is the source from which we learn any such laws
4 the undefeatability of laws of nature
5 their unchangability from place to place or time to time
To believe in those assumptions is to believe in the biblical God. Our
reason for believing in an unknown and unknowable God is, therefore, that
those assumptions appear to be true, at least they work.
Sutherland (Suds) Macklem
Darwin is buried in Westminster Abbey with Church of England Greats
B377...@webtv.net
aware that I am not. After all, I only give my highest regards to those
who are, I have read the bible several times over and well aware that
that God only refers to two groups of people: the Jews and the
gentiles. I am quite aware of what group I am in, and starting to
believe that you are in the other (again, with my upmost regards and
respect).
Just remember this: I don''t need help realizing who I am not, I
only need the Lord to help realize who I am.
George Hammond
>
> Oh yes, Christianity is definitely the TRUE religion! It's what all
> religion aspires to be!, to be enticing and relevant to the authentic
> human animal. And if it spurs us to act more unthinkingly apelike, for
> the better OR for the worse, then it has succeeded!
>
[Hammond]
Get a load of this Jerry.. we may be making some headway
towards overhauling Christianity. (this is taken from
"U.S. Physicist proves God exists" currently on this NG.
Paul gate wrote:
> >>
> >> Proof of god from psychology?
> >> Stretching it. Aren't we?
> >
> >{Hammond]
> >Where do you think it's going to come from..
> >atom smashers.. the Space Shuttle.. the Sunday
> >comic strip... Fred's Car Wash...???
>
> God as a psychological phenomena?
>
> I doubt if many atheists will argue the toss, over that one
[Hammond]
My view of the Atheist position is that they simply say
there is no "rational explanation of God". One has to
agree with them, since even the Church will tell you that
the theory of God is "historical" or "proved by history".
When it comes to "scientific proof" I take it that the
Atheist position is simply that "science has yet to
produce a convincing proof of God". I have to agree with
them there also, as Aristotle, DeCartes, Leibnitz, Newton,
Pascal and all the other "proofs" have been soundly renounced by
modern science. However, IF modern science should actually
stumble on a bona fide credible (most likely experimental)
proof that God DOES exist, I think the Atheists being
rational objectivists would take the same view of the
evidence as "believers" would... that is, judge it to be
true or false based on majority scientific opinion. Right
now that majority opinion is, that there is no such thing
as a credible scientific proof of God.
Last but not least, I will add that I believe that I have
actually identified said "bona fide credible scientific
proof of God", and that is posted on my website. The way
the "believers" are studiously ignoring this development
I wouldn't be surprised if one of the Atheists was first to
point out that it appears to be correct.
I by the way was formerly an Agnostic, spending most of my
life believing God was a "myth" like Santa Claus, and was
not actually a real physical thing. I was actually surprised
to find out different.. in fact, I still don't know quite
what to make of it.
As far as "God being a psychological phenomena"... I'll keep
my reply simple... YES IT IS. However, keep this in mind,
there are numerous "psychological phenomena" and every one of
them has a different "biological-physics cause". It turns out
that only "God" is caused by Relativity/spacetime curvature.
This makes "God" the premier psychology phenomena, compared to
other more lowly phenomena such as Introversion-Extraversion
which is caused by Motor-Sensory brain structure or
Neurosis-Mania which is caused by Left-Right brain structure
or IQ (intelligence) which is caused by mental speed etc.
In the hierarchy of factors such as these (eigenvectors), "God"
is the "top factor" (and the last factor), and the only one
caused by "Gravity".
But, to stick to your question, YES.. "God is a psychological
factor". There is no "external God". God exists entirely in
the human head. However, this does NOT mean that we can subjectively
"see the difference". Like a warped lens in a telescope,
there is no way to tell if the problem is in the lens or in what
you are looking at. For all practical purposes God really IS
"out there", even though science can now prove he's actually
inside our head. Of course more able believers (Popes for instance)
have always suspected such was the case.. Jesus, Peter and Paul
certainly believed that IMHO.
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email: gham...@mediaone.net
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
PhilWoch
"Nope, you missed it again. And you snipped out the first line which
would have helped. You make comments about living by the words of
Jesus, that makes you a non-Jew."
Ken Cox
They were Jews, albeit probably of a liberal strain. So were
some of the other early followers. But when the ideas about
who (and what!) Jesus was and the role of his words changed,
primarily due to Paul, they became Christians. And Christians
are not Jews.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
John Savard
>PhilWoch wrote:
Christians aren't members of the Jewish religion. But members of any
ethnic group can become Christians, including those of Jewish
ancestry.
Being a Christian, therefore, no more prevents you from being a Jew
than it prevents you from being an Estonian or a Kurd.
John Savard (jsavard<at>ecn<dot>ab<dot>ca)
http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
Louann Miller
>Christians aren't members of the Jewish religion. But members of any
>ethnic group can become Christians, including those of Jewish
>ancestry.
>Being a Christian, therefore, no more prevents you from being a Jew
>than it prevents you from being an Estonian or a Kurd.
Theoretically, perhaps. There's a Christian sect called Messianic Jews
which tries to do exactly that. They call _themselves_ Jews; most of
the people that everyone else calls Jews rejects that
self-identification with great force and fervor.
Keep in mind that things look very different from the other side of
the fence. To the average Christian in the US, persecution of Jews is
something that happened a long time ago in another country about once
in history, or maybe twice (Naziism and the Spanish Inquisition). It
was obviously bad, but it was done by people Not Like Us -- Nazis, or
fanatical Catholics (who are also not like the Catholics down the
block.) Joe Sixpack the midwestern Baptist or Lutheran honestly
doesn't think of that as having anything to do with him.
This is the same Joe Sixpack who can't find Canada on a map 50% of the
time in surveys. Once again he never learned the information, or
forgot it right after the exam. In fact, Christian anti-Semitism has
been a constant theme at least since the fall of Rome. Richard I of
England threw all the Jews out of England; Martin Luther approved of
their being butchered in the Germany of his own time. Pogroms have
been a hobby throughout Russian history. Here in the US, in this
century, Jews were as unpopular with the KKK as blacks, although rarer
in their home territory. As late as the 1950's, Jews were as unwelcome
as blacks in many hotels.
For some reason, Jews are a little wary of assuming that this 1900
year history of constant low-grade harrassment with occasional bursts
of mass murder is gone forever. They just aren't going to toss all
that out and assume that the last 50 or so years of Christians
generously describing themselves as part of the "Judeo-Christian
tradition" will now continue until the end of time.
I imagine that Jews, collectively, look at Christianity, collectively,
the way an alcoholic's ex-wife whose broken bones still ache looks at
a social drinker. Sure, maybe it's harmless. Maybe it won't be like
that any more. This time. Maybe.
Will Pratt
Louann Miller wrote in message <3874dff5...@news.smu.edu>...
<snip>
>Keep in mind that things look very different from the other side of
>the fence. <snip>
Right on the mark, Louann.
Will
Will Pratt
pra...@nevada.edu
Louann Miller
>
>Louann Miller wrote in message <3874dff5...@news.smu.edu>...
><snip>
>
>>Keep in mind that things look very different from the other side of
>>the fence. <snip>
>
>Right on the mark, Louann.
Thanks. I think the mark of understanding somebody else's position is
the ability to restate it in terms that they themselves would consider
fair.
Matt Silberstein
Savard):
|Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote, in part:
|>PhilWoch wrote:
|
|>> "Nope, you missed it again. And you snipped out the first line which
|>> would have helped. You make comments about living by the words of
|>> Jesus, that makes you a non-Jew."
|>> Would you say that about Jesus and His disciples?
|>They were Jews, albeit probably of a liberal strain. So were
|>some of the other early followers. But when the ideas about
|>who (and what!) Jesus was and the role of his words changed,
|>primarily due to Paul, they became Christians. And Christians
|>are not Jews.
|Christians aren't members of the Jewish religion. But members of any
|ethnic group can become Christians, including those of Jewish
|ancestry.
|Being a Christian, therefore, no more prevents you from being a Jew
|than it prevents you from being an Estonian or a Kurd.
The name of this fallacy is equivocation, the use of one word with two
different meanings. Clearly the topic here is religion, not ethnic
background.
Matt Silberstein
----------------------------------------
You were under the impression
That when you were walking forward
You would end up further onward
But things ain't quite that simple
Pete Townshend - Quadrophenia
John Savard
>I imagine that Jews, collectively, look at Christianity, collectively,
>the way an alcoholic's ex-wife whose broken bones still ache looks at
>a social drinker. Sure, maybe it's harmless. Maybe it won't be like
>that any more. This time. Maybe.
That may well be true, but it hardly has anything to do with the
content of my post.
Persons of Jewish ethnic origin who convert to Christianity have -
during other persecutions than that under Nazism - been included as
targets of persecution, and commonly the word "Jew" means first the
member of the ethnic group, and only secondly the member of a
religion.
Louann Miller
wrote:
>loua...@yahoo.net (Louann Miller) wrote, in part:
>>I imagine that Jews, collectively, look at Christianity, collectively,
>>the way an alcoholic's ex-wife whose broken bones still ache looks at
>>a social drinker. Sure, maybe it's harmless. Maybe it won't be like
>>that any more. This time. Maybe.
>That may well be true, but it hardly has anything to do with the
>content of my post.
How not? You were contending that an ethnic Jew can convert to
Christianity and remain a Jew. I mentioned that the ordinary Jews both
observant and non-observant are likely to reject this with great
force. I went into some detail about why, but it was all in the
context of rebutting your original statement.
Lars Eighner
In our last episode <3879f4ea...@news.prosurfr.com>,
the lovely and talented jsa...@domain.ctry (John Savard)
broadcast on talk.origins:
|loua...@yahoo.net (Louann Miller) wrote, in part:
|
|>I imagine that Jews, collectively, look at Christianity, collectively,
|>the way an alcoholic's ex-wife whose broken bones still ache looks at
|>a social drinker. Sure, maybe it's harmless. Maybe it won't be like
|>that any more. This time. Maybe.
|
|That may well be true, but it hardly has anything to do with the
|content of my post.
|
|during other persecutions than that under Nazism - been included as
|targets of persecution, and commonly the word "Jew" means first the
|member of the ethnic group, and only secondly the member of a
|religion.
Yes. This was pretty much what the Inquisition was *supposed*
to be about -- the suspicion that ethnic Jews who had converted
were still secretly practicing the Jewish religion (which was
true in some cases). In theory, the Inquisition was not supposed
to have any authority to investigate religious Jews who were
making no attempt to pass themselves off as Christians. Of
course, these distinctions were pretty much lost once the
Inquisition got rolling.
--
Lars Eighner 700 Hearn #101 Austin TX 78703 eig...@io.com
(512) 474-1920 (FAX answers 6th ring) http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/
bookstore: http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/bookstore/
An honest politician is one who, when bought, stays bought.