Iamon lyme: We'd run out of room. People would get bored.. dangerous combination.

Artful Dodger: Or they could be using donkey meat. It appears many European salamis/sausages may contain donkey... ... ... I'm doing a chicken stew today. Starting from a whole fresh chicken being de-boned and cut up by myself.

.... Our local butchers trade is picking up!! ;P

Iamon lyme: Not so nice towards the end period.



"I don't know if this is relevant or not but our sun is among the top 10% of the largest stars in our galaxy."

No... If it was bigger then it would be a factor. Jupiter is more relevant I feel in it's cleansing ability.

"If you want to call that "wild rumors", then what would you call speculation of life on Mars because the surface indicates the presence of water?"

.... Mars is a nearly planet. From what I'm seeing now it is very probable it did have life. But with no magnetic field the sun killed it. They say an object like our moon did circle Mars but it appears to have crashed into the planet, when it was there.. Mars could have started to form organic life.

"But here's the kicker, at the time Drake and Sagan sent their message this was already known."

PR stunt.. like putting a record on the Voyagers.

"Because it will take 25,000 years for the message to reach its intended destination of stars (and an additional 25,000 years for any reply), the Arecibo message was more a demonstration of human technological achievement than a real attempt to enter into a conversation with extraterrestrials. In fact, the stars of M13, that the message was aimed at, will no longer be in that location when the message arrives.[1] According to the Cornell News press release of November 12, 1999, the real purpose of the message was not to make contact, but to demonstrate the capabilities of newly installed equipment."

Iamon lyme: Awww drat! I did it again! I'm getting ahead of myself... The metal content has nothing to do with lifespan, it has to do with a star system having enough of the heavy elements for creating an earth type planet. Our sun is expected to last a total of about 10 billion years, burning hydrogen steadily on its main sequence... so in this case it IS size that matters.

"Metal" content was about another point I wanted to make, how not just any old star or star system is able to have life just because a star is the right size or has the right luminosity. Drake and Sagan beamed a message to a large concentration of stars called globular cluster M13. The theory was because there are lots of stars in that region there was a higher probability of communicating with intelligent life.

Fat chance of that happening, since globular clusters are the worst places to go looking for life. They are among the most ancient things in the universe, which means their stars have a very low abundance of heavy elements... they're made up almost entirely of hydrogen and helium. The heavier elements are needed for building terrestrial planets. In globular clusters you are more likely to find only dust or grains or maybe boulders, but nothing like an Earth type planet that can serve as a platform for life to exist (much less develop). But here's the kicker, at the time Drake and Sagan sent their message this was already known.

Artful Dodger: I think that was the point of not allowing us to live forever. If not for death we could have ended up looking like puddles of goo, with two eyeballs looking up and pleading with God to kill us.

(V): I would not love it if my Big Mac was named after some horse! If McDs served horse meat and it was discovered, Burger King stock would rise. Unless they used some of the Old Grey Mare too.

I suppose if I were hungry enough though I'd even eat a Rocky Mountain oyster!

(V): "No.. most suns bigger than ours burn out quickly, especially the really big ones."

Size isn't the only factor. What I said was most suns the size of ours burn out more quickly because of stellar content. We have a very metal rich sun compared to most others of the SAME size. I wasn't comparing our sun to larger or smaller ones. And BTW, I don't know if this is relevant or not but our sun is among the top 10% of the largest stars in our galaxy.


"The stuff they taught us as kids is out of date!!"

Well no kidding! And probably more out of date when I was a kid than for you, but I'm not talking about what we were taught as kids.


And I wasn't talking about wild rumors of life on the moon either. I was referring to speculation among scientists (yes, actual scientists) about life possibly existing on the moon based on observations of the lunar surface indicating the presence of water. If you want to call that "wild rumors", then what would you call speculation of life on Mars because the surface indicates the presence of water?

Iamon lyme: All I know is I hope I don't experience infinite regression. But I think I'm on my way to a finite one.

Iamon lyme: Do not read anything by Origen then. lol

Could be a wall event, where you need to bang your head against one!! :))

Artful Dodger: Make a good stew. I'm waiting to hear if McD's get caught up in this mess. They do state that they get much of their beef from Ireland. :P

Iamon lyme: Not sure...That's kinda getting into high end ideas of singularities and pure energy.. not even the scientists are sure at this level, as it is the realm of quantum events.

"unless we are able to factor in how an unmoved mover can be the starting point for something that never started because "there never was a time when there was not motion"."

There... time. At the starting point.. what was time? Did it exist as we know it??

"As time has gone by the odds of there being many inhabitable planets has not increased, it's been decreasing. It's not simply a matter of how close a planet is to a sun and how much water is present."

No. Wild Victorian rumours of Men in the Moon, Mutants on Venus, etc.. were just wild rumours. I'm talking now. In the last 20-30 years, and so much definite proof in the last 0-5 thanks to the likes of Kepler and new techniques in allowing for atmospheric disruption for ground based telescopes.

"The presence of elements needed for life are not uniform throughout the universe. Some areas contain the heaviest elements but few if any of the lighter ones. And some areas have the lighter ones but not enough of the heavier ones."

I know... it was that variation that created the first stars. The recent analysis shows that galaxies themselves seem to clump in ribbons and clusters through out the universe.

"And carbon is still the only viable candidate for being a basic element for life, because of the carbon atoms unique ability to build large enough molecules for the wide variety of molecular machines and other structures"

And carbon is produced alot by stars as they start dying.... .... 13 billion years.....

"And BTW, most suns the size of ours burn out much faster than ours will.."

No.. most suns bigger than ours burn out quickly, especially the really big ones.

Dude... you need to take a look at some current youtube vids on physics and particularly stellar physics. The stuff they taught us as kids is out of date!!

Artful Dodger: "I could have saved Ari a lot of time and thought energy!"

Yeah, but if he hadn't spent all that time and thought energy he would have been out of a job. Besides, if centuries of analysis eventually lead back to "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", then it's not really a waste of time or energy. If faith is based on evidence and logic then it can't be called "blind" faith.

I wasted some time and energy because I assumed an infinite regression meant traversing the infinite. It was a bone head mistake, but at least I figured out what Ari was actually talking about... well, maybe I figured it out. I think he was saying an infinite regression 'of power' is impossible, so an unmoved mover is needed to keep the motion ball rolling.

Iamon lyme: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

done

there, that was easy. I could have saved Ari a lot of time and though energy!

Artful Dodger: "and I wonder who geared it?"

These debates always seem to come back to the same question: Is it a "who done it" or a "what done it". Aristotles unmoved mover almost appears to be an afterthought, a sort of work around for overcoming infinite regress. But I don't think that is what Aristotle had in mind. I think the unmoved mover was something to overcome the problem with entropy, because that's all it really does. It can't make an infinite number of past events go away after asserting motion has always existed.


I blew out a brain cell last night, so am waiting for a replacement... the other one still works but I don't want to overtax it.

(V): Yeah, I like chicken. Besides they poop everywhere and deserve to be eaten. For that matter, I should eat my dogs then.

Artful Dodger: We eat other farm yard animals, and they are more that than pets. Dog though is a step too far.... alot of work butchering for such a small return!! ;P

Iamon lyme: and I wonder who geared it?

(V): "Dude... dem boffins are blowing most previously held theories about how rare planets such as ours are.. they are not so rare."

Theories previously held by who? Scientists in the past believed there might have been life on the moon, based on observations made from looking through telescopes. As time has gone by the odds of there being many inhabitable planets has not increased, it's been decreasing. It's not simply a matter of how close a planet is to a sun and how much water is present.

"The Universe is geared to create the necessary elements we need for physical existence."

The presence of elements needed for life are not uniform throughout the universe. Some areas contain the heaviest elements but few if any of the lighter ones. And some areas have the lighter ones but not enough of the heavier ones. We just happen to live in a system that has the full range of essential elements. And carbon is still the only viable candidate for being a basic element for life, because of the carbon atoms unique ability to build large enough molecules for the wide variety of molecular machines and other structures (including the DNA package) in cells. So you can't just go anywhere in the universe that has enough water and hope to find lots and lots of inhabitable planets. It's much more complicated than that. And BTW, most suns the size of ours burn out much faster than ours will... because our sun has just the right mix of materials to keep it going for more than 2 or 3 billion years.

(V): Aristotle believed both the universe and the unmoved mover are eternal. The kalam argument acknowledges an eternal unmoved mover, but not an eternal universe.

(V): [ Aristotle concludes, "That there never was a time when there was not motion, and never will be a time when there will not be motion" ]

But then he says...

[ Since everything is moved by something and since motion is eternal, Aristotle concludes that there must be something that imparts motion without itself being moved; otherwise, there would be an infinite regress of movers, the moved and instruments of moving, which is unacceptable (Physics 8.5). (An axiom for Aristotle is that an infinite regress is impossible.) ]

How can an infinite regress be impossible if "there never was a time when there was not motion"?

He appears to be talking about an eternal universe in which the unmoved mover is able to overcome the problem of an infinite number of past events. I don't know how, because if "there never was a time when there was not motion" then there never was a starting point, which means there must be an infinite number of past events. His argument is self defeating, unless we are able to factor in how an unmoved mover can be the starting point for something that never started because "there never was a time when there was not motion".

(V): with dark beer

(V): Horse meat! I would not like that. Horses are pets (well sort of - maybe more like family). It's like eating one's dog. IMHO

Iamon lyme: Did I say that... No.

Do I presume there is no means for us to survive.... No.

Eggs in nests have a natural ability to be able to leave as they grow.

" because there are few if any other systems in our gallaxy cabable of supporting life... in fact, the chance of finding any within our gallaxy is probably next to zero,"

That is incorrect. The evidence now through the likes of the Kepler telescope is that there are many places we could live in this Galaxy. The evidence is that Mars once did have life, Just it lost it's magnetic field... well, most of it.

Dude... dem boffins are blowing most previously held theories about how rare planets such as ours are.. they are not so rare. The Universe is geared to create the necessary elements we need for physical existence.

Iamon lyme: As far as I remember the initial discussion were nothing like the Kalam stuff you are quoting. Rather...

"From his considerations of the nature of motion in Physics, in Book 8, Aristotle concludes that there must be a logically first unmoved mover in order to explain all other motion. In Physics 8.1, he argues that motion is eternal. Motion cannot begin without the prior existence of something to impart motion in another thing, so that there will always be something in motion, since something at rest cannot cause motion in another thing. In addition, if motion were not eternal, then time would not have always existed, since time is the measure of motion; but, according to Aristotle, no one would be willing to say that time has not always been in existence. Nor can motion cease, since to do so something must cause it to cease, but then the thing that caused motion to cease would require something to cause its cessation and the process would continue ad infinitum. Aristotle concludes, "That there never was a time when there was not motion, and never will be a time when there will not be motion" (252b 6-8). Aristotle also objects to the idea that motion may have begun self-caused; he points out that, in those things in which motion is said to be "self-caused," in fact, there is a part of the thing that is already in motion and imparts motion to the whole. Self-caused means that motion is not imparted from without but from some part of the whole that is already in motion. In such cases, the motion of the part that moves the other parts of a things requires a mover.

Since everything is moved by something and since motion is eternal, Aristotle concludes that there must be something that imparts motion without itself being moved; otherwise, there would be an infinite regress of movers, the moved and instruments of moving, which is unacceptable (Physics 8.5). (An axiom for Aristotle is that an infinite regress is impossible.) According to Aristotle, all movable things are only potentially in motion, and require something else to act upon them in order to be set in motion: "So it is clear that in all these cases the thing does not move itself, but it contains within itself the source of motion—not of moving something or of causing motion, but of suffering it." (Physics 8.4; 255b 29-31). Thus, if there were no unmoved mover, there could be no motion, because a moved mover requires a cause of its own motion and no infinite regress is possible. In Physics 8.6, Aristotle argues that, since motion is both eternal and necessary, the first mover must be equally eternal and necessary. Because those things involved in the eternal and continuous process of motion are not eternal and necessary, since they come into being and perish, there must be one or many eternal and necessary thing or things outside the process of motion that imparts or impart motion to the things in motion. This is the only way that there could be any motion, for non-eternal and contingent movers cannot explain all motion, because their own coming into existence needs a cause. He explains, "There is something that comprehends them all, and that as something apart from each one of them, and this it is that is the cause of the fact that some things are and others are not and of the continuous process of change" (Physics 259a 3-5). It is not possible to explain eternal motion by postulating a plurality of unmoved movers capable of imparting motion but that do not exist eternally, for "There must clearly be something that causes things that move themselves at one time to be and at another time not to be" (Physics 258b 21). Aristotle determines that there is only one unmoved mover, not only because many unmoved movers are unnecessary, but because only one mover could produce a continuous motion, in the sense of being an interconnected system of causes and effects. Moreover, since it is continuous, motion is one; one effect requires a single cause, so that the unmoved mover must also be one. He concludes that an unmoved mover causing eternal motion must likewise be eternal (Physics 260a 1-2)."

>>>>Warning in depth research into this carries a standard headache alert, and advises a pint of beer to relax the brain cells. <<<<

(V): "the time to Red Giant is about 5-7 billion years for our star.... when that hits, the Earth is screwed."

Perhaps in that time we will have evolved bigger brains, and sturdier necks for carrying the extra load. With more brain power we might be able to solve the problem of where to go and how to get there. SETI is a good first step toward finding intelligent life somewhere else, so we can apply for residency on a habitable planet. But we can't depend on being welcome just because we find a good place to live. Besides, the odds of finding such a place by sending out intergallactic inquires is very remote, because there are few if any other systems in our gallaxy cabable of supporting life... in fact, the chance of finding any within our gallaxy is probably next to zero, so we need to look at other spiral galaxies for habital zones. There are two other types of galaxies, eliptical and one other (I forgot the name) but niether of those will do because of density problems and the inability of any star to remain in a clear zone with a circular galactic orbit. The circular orbit of our star prevents it from crossing over into one of the two spiral arms we are conveniently located between, in a relatively clear zone of space. The spirals are danger zones for the same reason the central bulk of our gallaxy is a danger zone... too much radiation.

Yep.... we will definitely need bigger brains, no doubt about it.

(V): "Btw... the time to Red Giant is about 5-7 billion years for our star.... when that hits, the Earth is screwed. Granted the death of our sun is a few billion years later, but if we are still around, we have to have flown the nest."

I'm sorry to hear your god is disinterested in this problem. Or too wimpy to do anything about it.

(V): "I think you ought to realise that this argument about cause and effect dates back to earlier times. The early Christian fathers were certainly 'learned' in such thinking since the likes of Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) postulated such in the FOUR causes, answers to one question.... "why?".

Never heard of the kalam argument before."


I've seen a few thumbnail sketches of the history of this argument. They don't agree on all points, but it's safe to assume it started with a response to Aristotles belief that the universe is eternal. The "kalam" started with early Christian thinkers, then Jewish and Islamic theologians. The one thing these three all have in common is the universe and everything in it being created by (one) God. It was an Islamic scholar who is credited with formalising this argument, hence the Islamic origins of the name (kalam).

But even without the idea of a God, there is still controversy over this because of what a first cause would have to be in order for a universe to arise from nothing. Aristotles eternal universe is equivalent to our steady state universe theory, and the creation story is equivalent to the big bang theory. The debate between a steady state universe and the big bang was hotly debated for the same reason the kalam was debated... one points towards the existence of a God, the other points away from the universe needing a God.

I've also proposed a new recipe for them.... Soylent Green. It's much more palatable then the previous Red and Yellow versions I've experimented with, better nutrition also :))

... In recent UK news it has emerged that several supermarkets have been selling beef burgers that contain horse meat.... upto 30% in some cases. There is no food safety concerns, just that of mislabelling. All the supermarkets involved were using the same supplier based in Ireland, which has resulted in several million burgers being removed from UK stores.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1f2_1358454345


.. I have asked one of the supermarkets (Tesco's) to answer when they would be getting more burgers soon, and how much horse meat would they contain... The last lot just wasn't lean enough, too much beef!! :))

Btw... the time to Red Giant is about 5-7 billion years for our star.... when that hits, the Earth is screwed. Granted the death of our sun is a few billion years later, but if we are still around, we have to have flown the nest.

Iamon lyme: Quid pro quo I thought being a reason enough.

"Was I not supposed to understand?"

No.. But in explaining your "typing" you explain yourself. Like you've just stated you like to divide ... ie create "legion" according to some interpretations.

"It mattered a thousand years ago, when there was no empirical evidence to prove the universe began to exist. Up until the last century the second statement was hotly debated and the focus of controversy."

I think you ought to realise that this argument about cause and effect dates back to earlier times. The early Christian fathers were certainly 'learned' in such thinking since the likes of Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) postulated such in the FOUR causes, answers to one question.... "why?".

Never heard of the kalam argument before.

(V): "Then explain what you understand, or think you do."

Why? If I'm right or wrong, either way it doesn't matter. I've been asking you questions because I didn't understand your position. I even told you that was what I was doing, so what's the problem? Was I not supposed to understand?


"There appears to be a weakness in the second statement because the argument was formulated almost a thousand years ago... a thousand years ago there was no scientific evidence to support a big bang theory."

"But there is now, it was even taught when I was at school in the 70's studying 'O' level physics... Does it matter??"

It mattered a thousand years ago, when there was no empirical evidence to prove the universe began to exist. Up until the last century the second statement was hotly debated and the focus of controversy. But even after being proven true by scientific evidence, the kalam argument is still being debated. Why? No one had previously argued against the first statement, so what's left to debate?

The first and second statements can be debated, and the second has been proven true by science, so that only leaves the first statement open to criticism. There's no point in arguing with the third statement, because it is only a conclusion derived from the first two.

Iamon lyme: Different matter.

"that little tidbit about the sun is all I needed (on top of what you've already said) for me to understand what or who you believe God is."

Then explain what you understand, or think you do.

"There appears to be a weakness in the second statement because the argument was formulated almost a thousand years ago... a thousand years ago there was no scientific evidence to support a big bang theory."

But there is now, it was even taught when I was at school in the 70's studying 'O' level physics... Does it matter??

Rather now, it's more of a process... including parts that break the normal rules of physics (re lightspeed.. the universe can expand faster than it) ...anti matter/matter annihilation, clumping of hydrogen causing the first stars to form... and then die giving birth to the heavier elements we all are made of.

It's a beautifully simple process on the large scale :))

Silvery Moon: I've moved on to another topic.

Iamon lyme: Who do you believe what God is??

I've been reading about the kalam cosmological argument. It's based on these three statements:

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe had a beginning
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause

There appears to be a weakness in the second statement because the argument was formulated almost a thousand years ago... a thousand years ago there was no scientific evidence to support a big bang theory. Philosophy and math were used to reason that the universe must have had a beginning. For instance, they used math and logic to prove that an infinite number of past events lead to logical absurdities. And that's just one example... different ideas were examined, the least likely ones were shaved away (occam's razor) and the last one standing was "The universe had a beginning".

This argument is mostly supported by theists... in other words, it's "arguable". *<(:op

(V): "As to the world ending.... About 6 billion years or more when the sun goes into it's red giant stage as the star starts to die"

6 billion? That doesn't give us much time. I've heard it could keep going for another 10 billion years before it starts winding down. But regardless of how long it takes, that little tidbit about the sun is all I needed (on top of what you've already said) for me to understand what or who you believe God is.

(V): ".. I worked for one company years back who were hired to check that computers their contractors used not going to have a logic hiccup through not enough date storage bits... One guy working at the company believed that even toasters were going to be affected by this ""Y2K"" problem."

It's my understanding the Y2K problem was fixed with plenty of time left over before the year 2000 arrived. Oh well, at least it was fun to speculate over what could have happened, and maybe gin up some fear over it. And it could have been worse than anyone anticipated... if it caused clocks to stop working altogether, even analogs like the wind up grandfather clocks, then maybe time itself would have stood still. We will never know, because all those clocks kept on working and moving time along.

(V): Please explain to me how any prediction can be a 'fake'. If you predict the outcome of a horse race, is the prediction a 'fake' if the outcome is not as you predicted?

Iamon lyme: All sorts.. From Christian preachers making a mint on predicting the second coming to people believing we are about to be hit by a rogue planet.... ... That months/years before it'd been easy to see unaided such a rogue planet is of no matter to their belief.

.. I worked for one company years back who were hired to check that computers their contractors used not going to have a logic hiccup through not enough date storage bits... One guy working at the company believed that even toasters were going to be affected by this ""Y2K"" problem.

..... Still some people believe the world is flat..... Mind is a powerful device that can get hard wired as well as software errors that create false reality.

This is an old known problem.

As to the world ending.... About 6 billion years or more when the sun goes into it's red giant stage as the star starts to die.

(V): "You understand now why there have been so many fake end of the worlds predicted."

I'm not aware of anyone who believed the Mayan calendar running out meant the end of the world. I'm aware of people implying there were people who believed it, but I would have to take that on faith as I haven't heard of or from anyone who actually believed it. I'm sure some people believed it because they heard skeptics talking about it, but I'm inclined to believe that story started with the skeptics. However, if as you say there have been many 'fake' end of the world predictions, doesn't that imply the existence of a 'genuine' prediction? If you believe the world will come to an end, then perhaps you could enlighten us with a genuine prediction. Or are you talking about something else?

Iamon lyme: ............... You understand now why there have been so many fake end of the worlds predicted.

One passage I was taught is the core of it all.

(V): "The Snake is punished for its role in their fall by being made to crawl on its belly in the dust, from where it continues to bite the heel of man. According to the Rabbinical tradition, the serpent represents sexual desire.[1][3]"


How does Rabbinical tradition interpret mans punishment of working the ground and eating by the sweat of his brow, and womans increased travail in childbirth? If not literal, then what do those represent? What are the guidlines for determining what may be interpreted literally or not? If the story of Noah had to be symbolic until our knowledge of DNA and natural selection "made" it possible for that to be a real event, am I to assume reality itself is dependent on what I am able to understand? If you reduce the entire story of creation (and the fall) to being figurative, then the serpents involvement and what happened to him CAN be reduced to the serpent representing sexual desire. So now, if the serpents roll in all of this has been reduced to biting heels, I can now interpret that to mean all sexual desires are limited to foot fetishes... in other words, as long as I'm able to divorce anything from reality I don't want linked with reality, I'm free to interpret anything to mean what I want it to mean.

Iamon lyme: The symbol of a serpent or snake played important roles in religious and cultural life of ancient Egypt, Canaan, Mesopotamia, and Greece. The serpent was a symbol of evil power and chaos from the underworld as well as a symbol of fertility, life, and healing.[2] Nahash, Hebrew for "snake", is also associated with divination, including the verb-form meaning to practice divination or fortune-telling. In the Hebrew Bible, Nahash occurs in the Torah to identify the serpent in Eden.....

....The Hebrew word nahash is used to identify the creature that appears in Genesis 3, in the Garden of Eden. God placed Adam in the Garden to tend it (Genesis 2:15), but he has warned both Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, "or you will die". (Genesis 3:3, NIV) The serpent tells Eve that this is untrue, and that if she and the man eat the fruit they will have knowledge and will not die. So Adam and Eve eat the fruit, but the knowledge they gain is loss of childlike innocence, and they are banished from the Garden. The Snake is punished for its role in their fall by being made to crawl on its belly in the dust, from where it continues to bite the heel of man. According to the Rabbinical tradition, the serpent represents sexual desire.[1][3]

The serpent of Genesis plays the role of trickster, a speaking animal which even shares knowledge with God which is hidden from man. As with other trickster-figures, the gift it brings is double-edged: Adam and Eve gain knowledge, but lose Eden. The choice of a venomous snake for this role seems to arise from Near Eastern traditions associating snakes with danger and death, magic and secret knowledge, rejuvenation, immortality, and sexuality. It is also possible that the association of the snake with the nude goddess in Canaanite iconography lies behind the scene in the Garden between the reptile and naked Eve, "Mother of all life",[4] the "Great Mother Goddess of the Canaanites"[5] Qetesh.

Debate about the Serpent in Eden is whether it should be viewed figuratively or as a literal animal. Voltaire, drawing on Socinian influences, wrote: "It was so decidedly a real serpent, that all its species, which had before walked on their feet, were condemned to crawl on their bellies. No serpent, no animal of any kind, is called Satan, or Belzebub, or Devil, in the Pentateuch."[6]

"So yeah, there's all sorts of contradictions and inconsistencies and impossibilities... if that's what you WANT to see."

Maybe not if you allow for the heritage of our ancestors that was oral history. It's still used by the aborigines to teach how to survive in the bush.

btw.... I was as well talking about Genesis, but remembering certain proverbs passages stating this a wise creation.

Iamon lyme: "I mean choice in the sense of before we could rationalise, see the difference..."


Obviously (or not) we wouldn't have a made a choice because we couldn't have made a choice before there was a choice.

And if after creating everything, when God looked at it and said it was good, why assume that to mean evil was already there? There is no clear timeline to place exactly when satan became corrupt, except that it must have happened before his encounter with man. So according to the story, evil came into existence between the time God created everything and the serpents first ecounter with man.

So, there ARE some things we can know about the creation story, but if you ignore the internal consistency of the story, then you should have no problem finding contradictions and inconsistencies.

For instance, how could Cain have married someone before there were women? I guess I would have to assume everyone lived for a very long time, enough time for there to be enough people (a large enough population) to choose from. But I don't have to assume, because according to the story everyone did have very long lifespans. Okay then, so if he did get married, they must have been closely related, and that's just wrong! Well, you could expand on that by realising everyone today comes from the same root family, so if you hook up with anyone it's just plain wrong!

Or how about getting all those animals into Noahs boat? How could all the different animals in the world (today) have fit into that boat? That's impossible, because it would mean nature had some mechanism, like natural selection, that could take a small sampling containing enough DNA to account for all of the animals living in the world today.

So yeah, there's all sorts of contradictions and inconsistencies and impossibilities... if that's what you WANT to see.

(V): "I mean choice in the sense of before we could rationalise, see the difference rather than just reacting unconsciously."

I'm talking specifically about what it says in the book of Genesis. What happened wasn't because of an unconscious reaction, it was because of rationalisation. Eve told the serpent it was forbidden fruit, and what would happen if they took and ate of it. So they knew what God had told them and what it meant, and it never occurred to them God might be lying about it until someone came along with rationalisations. That's how liers justify what they do. They "rationalise"... they find reasons to believe what they want to believe. Or what they want you to believe, same difference.

Übergeek 바둑이: Hard to prove either way unless we get a major find(s) showing link/no links.

Iamon lyme: I mean choice in the sense of before we could rationalise, see the difference rather than just reacting unconsciously.

"The effects of evil aren't limited to us, even though we are responsible for letting it in."

To a certain point depending on age.

" Natural selection didn't sin, we did. But if you open a door and let smoke from a pulp mill in, you won't be the only one (or only thing) affected by it... the smoke will get on and into anything it comes in contact with."

The ripple effect... yes. But as the smoke getting into everything.... that is where free will really comes alive. The ability to step back and be as it were an unmoved mover (it's an old Greek term for the essence of being.. ie God)

"If you assume evil bugs were here before the problem began, it's the same as assuming nature cannot change. Nature can (and does) change."

Our genetic structure proves bugs were around, some helped to form of immune system and helped us to evolve... and yes nature does change. Dinosaurs are alive no as birds are they not!! ;P

(V):

> Not sure if it is the first. I've heard of Zoroastrianism some years back, and also of the Corpus Hermeticum. The Latter I've read and dates back to the same sorta period (or so they say now, it might change again!) ... There is a good probability Moses would have been exposed to the teachings if the dates are now right... I fso they date back to 2000BC - 1500BC.

The Hermetica were written in the 2nd or 3rd centuries AD. While some have argued that they date back to the Pharaonic period in Egypt. However, they are more likely to have arisen shortly before Plato's time in the 6th century BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Hermeticum

It is interesting because scholars believed that the same ideas in the Hermtica influenced Greek philosophers in antiquity. The first book of the Hermetica introduces Poemandres, the shepherd of men who introduces the disciple to the divine. This is an idea that Christianity borrowed 6 centuries later. This comes as no surprise since St. Paul had so much contact with Greeks in the 1st century AD.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/hermet.htm

Although dated to the 6th century BC, the Hermetica is probably based on older ideas. Zarathustra is believed to have lived in northeastern Iran or Southwestern Afghanistan between 200 and 1500 BC. However, it is likely that his ideas descent from something much older.

Before there was Europe or Asia and all the modern divisions of its peoples, there were the Proto-Indo-Europeans, the Bronze-age predecessor culture that shaped the language and religion of our modern world. The Proto-Indo-Europeans lived during the late Neolithic era (4000 BC), but some archaelogists believe that they may have lived in the early Neolithic (7500 BC). Their languages certainly gave rise to many modern language families such as Indo-Iranian, Turkic, Semitic, Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, Latin, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans

The Indo-European religion can be partially reconstructed using comparative mythology and linguistics, and many Gods that might seem unrelated in different cultures suddenly appear to be the same Gods, although their mythologies and names are mutated over the centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion

Looking at the Indo-European religion makes me wonder if a small group of people within it had developed a more abstract concept of God and a concept of the duality of good and evil. This god would be descended from Deiwos, the main deity of the Indo-European pantheon. If that happened, it was probably very late in the development of the Indo-European culture. I suspect that it happened separately in at least two places.

One would be among the Semitic people who founded Chaldea. According to the Old Testament, Abraham was Chaldean, and the Old Testament never claims that Abraham invented monotheism. There are a couple of passages where Abraham is addressed by others who are clearly monotheists like him, they are Semitic like him, but they belong to entirely different clans. So it would seem that Monotheism was there, but it was with Abraham that Judaism finds its first, earliest expression.

The other place would be among the Indo-Iranians who lived further east and were geographically separated from the Semitic people's of Anatolia. The Zoroastrians also developed a monotheist view of the universe, but with a more clearly defined abstract duality of good and evil.

There were others too, such as the partial monotheism of the cult of Aten during the reign of Akenaten (Amenhotep IV) between 1353 and 1336 BC. Atenism was considered a great heresy in Egypt because Akenaten sought to get rid of polytheism and replace it with a single supreme deity. The religion died with Akenathen and the old Egyptian polytheism was restored by his successor Tutankhamun. It is likely that this cult of Aten was the predecessor of the Hermetica that came 7 centuries later. Belief in Aten is truly old, going back to the 18th century BC as evident in the Tale of Sinuhe, a text written some 500 years before the reign of Akenaten. This text is older than the Old Testament. It must be pointed that Atenism was really a politically motivated religion that identified Akenaten with the supreme god Aten. By making himself the supreme god, Akenaten ensured that he had absolute control over all of Egypt, including the powerful priestly class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atenism

A good question would be whether these forms of monotheism arose separately or whether they had a common predecessor. Scholars cannot agree on this because there is weak archaelogical evidence and because some scholars would probably not want to take the risk of claiming that the Abrahamic religions have a predecessor much older than the Old Testament.