Reply
Sun 1 Oct, 2006 09:43 am
In broad strokes:
To me the word 'god' means 'EverythingAlways'. It is an abstract idea. Everything is part of 'god' in the same way that 'branch' and 'leaf' are part of 'tree'.
So 'god' is the trancendental notion of wholeness while 'creation' is 'fractures of god'. It is the same thing, only viewed differently.
Based on this, when the bible states 'god is omnipotent' I say sure.
Omnipresent, yep.
And so on...
'The lord works in mysterious ways', some christians like to say.
And thus he created adam. But to the modern rational mind it doesn't make sense that he created eve from adams body. So in my rationality I ask 'are there any creatures we know of that multiply in a way consistent with the genesis?'
Yes
Single celled organisms, amoebas.
The very first creatures to live on earth.
They multiply by cytogenesis, one springs from the body of another.
At the beginning of all life it is very possible that there was only one cell, one amoeba. And from this sprang the next. Adam and Eve.
And then there is the forbidden fruit. How could 'god' (as defined above) have forbid the primal creatures the gift of wisdom? I can think of an answer.
When we look at it through both darwinian eyes and biblical eyes, we see that the survival and evolution of primitive life is based of an indivisible progression of energy with no apparent consciousness apart from the energy itself. Plants and vegetation have this existence, and some animals.
Anything that doesn't possess a notion of self has this existence. This 'state of being' is what I would put in the word 'eden'.
Humans rebelled against this 'state of being' by inventing a concept of self. We see that other species are following behind. Research shows that apes retain, or can at least be taught, the concept of self.
When self arrived everything changed.'God' and 'self' are conflicting concepts based on the above defifinition of 'god', and so when 'self' was born 'god' was forgotten. This is the core of the 'choice-determinism' problem, and part of the reason why the tale is still relevant.
Quote:Single celled organisms, amoebas.
The very first creatures to live on earth.
What's the scientific evidence for this statement?
Have you forgotten that prokaryotes arrived on Earth prior to the
evolution of eukaryotes?
Sorry, but I do not know what prokaryotes and eukaryotes are.
Well, the scientific evidence that single celled organisms multiply by dividing is to be found in a microscope.
As for them being the first living creatures on the earth, I guess I have to admit that I cannot know this.
Cyracuz wrote:Sorry, but I do not know what prokaryotes and eukaryotes are.
Please consult a Biology text.
The two biggest hangups most people have about religion are the theory of evolution, and the problem of evil.
Evolution is basically junk science and has been repeatedly disproven, and it's just a matter of time before the idea is totally abandoned.
The problem of evil is more complicated. It's basically a facet of the question of what the word "omnipotent" is supposed to mean. The most common definition, i.e. having all the power which anybody could imagine, leads to conundrums. A better definition which does not lead to logical pitfalls is "having all the power that there actually is".
In particular, God and the spirit world have little if any power to directly act in our physical realm since the realm they inhabit is not physical. It may actually be that man was created to provide the spirit realm with some degree of instrumentality in the physical realm. To do that of course, you'd have to have a believable system of communication between the two realms and such actually did exist in old testament times and before that, but it no longer does.
best ot use a college level Biology text published in 2005, or 2006.
Science has shown that the most likely first true forms of life were single cells and possible virus types. Because so deep in antiquity, they have many gaps to fill. Fossils progress to more varied and many have more cells the newer they get. They spread from water to land. The fossil record is one aspect of evolutionary study and a prime reason the science has gone from hypothsis to theory. They have enough evidence to show evolution happens. Denial on the basis of religion changes nothing.
Hey, Cyracuz. I'm still waiting on Fresco to explain the ninth configuration in scientific terms.<smile>
Funny true story.
a group of guys were playing baseball on Sunday, and one man was struck by lightning. The local pastor made it the topic of his sermon saying:
The Lord works in mischiveous ways.
gungasnake wrote:
Evolution is basically junk science and has been repeatedly disproven, and it's just a matter of time before the idea is totally abandoned.
Oh really?
Well if a reputable scientist like
Behe said it, it
must be so!
Some claim evolution (the theory of evolution/macroevolution) is unfalsifiable and a pseudoscience, but I don't quite buy that. The fruit fly tests run over two or three decades in the early 1900s amounted to a valid test of the idea and the idea failed the test. If macroevolution were possible, it would have been seen under those conditions.
gungasnake wrote:Some claim evolution (the theory of evolution/macroevolution) is unfalsifiable and a pseudoscience, but I don't quite buy that. The fruit fly tests run over two or three decades in the early 1900s amounted to a valid test of the idea and the idea failed the test. If macroevolution were possible, it would have been seen under those conditions.
Wow, you have single handedly overturned the theory of evolution.
May I attend your nobel prize ceremony?
My aim in posting these thoughts about the biblical genesis is not to disprove anything or to claim someone's wrong. I merely wish to explore the possibillities of enterpreting the biblical genesis in a way that does not contradict modern science.
In so doing I think it would be wise to be open about certain things.
I'm assuming that the genesis is true. Just for the fun of it, and just for the occasion. I'm also assuming that the scientific theories of evolution are true. I'm not assuming that any of the above are accurate or complete though.
When I find a paradox I start to simplify matters until the paradox is gone. An example is how I compare the story of Eve coming from Adam's body to biological cytogenesis.
I keep reminding myself that the ancient texts we are dealing with are written more as poetry compared to the clinical way of modern information exchange, and I try to include this in my considerations.
Cyracuz wrote:I keep reminding myself that the ancient texts we are dealing with are written more as poetry compared to the clinical way of modern information exchange, and I try to include this in my considerations.
Do you take into consideration the fact that in ancient times, people didn't have squat for answers and so they just made everything up?
No. My own understanding of god is of such a nature that it requires precious little in the way of knowledge. It only requires the ability for abstract thought and logical reasoning. Given the definition of god that I have offered here and elswhere, to deny the existence of god is wrong.
Cyracuz wrote:
I keep reminding myself that the ancient texts we are dealing with are written more as poetry compared to the clinical way of modern information exchange, and I try to include this in my considerations.
That's basically wrong. Ancients lived in an utterly subjective world and the language they used was theirs, and not ours. They would never write that John went to the bathroom; rather that the Lord CAUSED John to go to the bathroom for such and such a reason. Now, when you read that, you can be certain that John DID go to the bathroom, since they did not make **** up. The religious interpretation, you can take or leave.
"Isildur said to their king: "Thou shalt be the last king. And if the West prove mightier than thy Black Master, this curse I lay upon thee and thy folk: to rest never until your oath is fulfilled. For this war will last through years uncounted, and you shall be summoned once again ere the end."
So by your logic Gungasnake, Isildur did not neccessarily use those exact words, but he and the king must have at least existed?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace