Real things and real people are indifferent to our belief of their existence;
it is only imaginary things and people which are entirely dependent on human belief.
Posts by Terry
-
22Simple Thought Experiment with a stunning premise!
by Terry inthought experimenttake the classic definitions of "god" and deconstruct it layer by layer by asking achingly simple questions.ready?
set?
go!_____god is (fill in the blank with the usual definitions).
-
-
Terry
-
22
Simple Thought Experiment with a stunning premise!
by Terry inthought experimenttake the classic definitions of "god" and deconstruct it layer by layer by asking achingly simple questions.ready?
set?
go!_____god is (fill in the blank with the usual definitions).
-
-
Terry
If God created "the best of all possible worlds" the fall of humanity is the best He can do.
A "god" who can't do better than this - a god who is driven toward a rescue scheme for flawed outcomes is perhaps not so different from humanity.
In fact, just exactly the sort of god we'd expect a human brain to concoct as an escape from oblivion in death. -
26
NOAH and his impossible struggle to refute Math Physics & Earth Science
by Terry inalice laughed: "there's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things.".
"i daresay you haven't had much practice," said the queen.
"when i was younger, i always did it for half an hour a day.
-
-
Terry
"Do you ever think about the things you think about?"
From INHERIT THE WIND. -
22
Simple Thought Experiment with a stunning premise!
by Terry inthought experimenttake the classic definitions of "god" and deconstruct it layer by layer by asking achingly simple questions.ready?
set?
go!_____god is (fill in the blank with the usual definitions).
-
-
Terry
Like I said, these deconstructions are simply meant to put us in a "fresh" and novel spot
as a promontory where we're out of our comfort zone of "knowing" the off-the-rack
"knowledge" handed to us by our parents, religion, and experts.
Our World View can be an EXAMINED view rather than a 'received' view.
Words and Thinking are almost inextricably intertwined. We need to be extremely cautious about definitions, IMHO. -
11
The dangerous species: The True Believer
by Terry inthe age of enlightenment is worth a good look.
(the rise of reason, science, art, philosophy replacing superstition and 'belief.
")for millennia emperors and popes enforced compliance in our world.
-
-
Terry
Humility ain't what it used to be.
Except for Moses.
My grandmother spoke the word without the "h" sound. It was "umble."
Maybe it's a French thing. Eh? -
26
NOAH and his impossible struggle to refute Math Physics & Earth Science
by Terry inalice laughed: "there's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things.".
"i daresay you haven't had much practice," said the queen.
"when i was younger, i always did it for half an hour a day.
-
-
Terry
What did the animals coming off the ark eat for the months and months necessary to replenish the food supply?
That's a question I don't hear asked very often (if at all)? -
22
Simple Thought Experiment with a stunning premise!
by Terry inthought experimenttake the classic definitions of "god" and deconstruct it layer by layer by asking achingly simple questions.ready?
set?
go!_____god is (fill in the blank with the usual definitions).
-
-
Terry
I was hoping for a discussion of your ideas - all of you.
I'm not trying to say THIS IS CORRECT.
It is just a hypothetical exploration of "definition" rather than:
"The sound of one hand clapping"
By deconstructing our ideas we must break them down into the smallest parts, constituencies, essences. Aristotle : “the essence of a thing is what it is said to be in respect of itself”
All definitions of GOD rely on a post-Creation setting. The only way to deconstruct the essence of GOD is to take that one step back BEFORE creation. At that point,
Whatever GOD is - is in relation only to GOD.
The Thought Experiment seeks the Axiomatic GOD rather than the "historical" GOD of the written word post creation.
THINK of a number which does NOT exist. (Go ahead. I'll wait.)
Even if you possess infinite wisdom and freedom your knowledge and unfettered-ness
isn't sufficient to that task.
Why?
That's not how thinking and numbers works.
To understand ANYTHING we must first strip that object of every non-essential
possible and leaving only its essential nature. -
22
Simple Thought Experiment with a stunning premise!
by Terry inthought experimenttake the classic definitions of "god" and deconstruct it layer by layer by asking achingly simple questions.ready?
set?
go!_____god is (fill in the blank with the usual definitions).
-
-
Terry
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
Take the Classic definitions of "God" and deconstruct it layer by layer by asking achingly simple questions.
READY? Set? Go!
_____
GOD is (fill in the blank with the usual definitions)STOP!
Go back one step. Just one! BEFORE you can define God...
What about BEFORE? Before what?
What about BEFORE God was a creator or created anyone or anything?
Discussion:Creation is the "beginning" for the created--but--surely not for the person of God.
BEFORE God began creating persons or things.......by definition, God was not a CREATOR.
Fair enough?
_____
God is All-KnowingBEFORE God began creating.....there was nothing......and consequently, nothing TO KNOW.
(When there is nothing -there is nothing to know.)
(Descartes: "I think, therefore, I AM." Descartes existed and could think only because he existed. If Descartes did not exist - there's no Descartes to utter "I Am."
Socrates: " I only know I know nothing." For Socrates, there was so much he didn't know about everything he was forced to admit what he did know may as well be counted as nothing.)
But God - BEFORE creation - had nobody and nothing "about which" knowledge was necessary.
For God to make the "I AM" statement - God must be distinguishable from 'something" rather than nothing.
GOD is LOVETo "Love" is to value above all else.
If there is nobody and nothing in existence there's obviously no "else".Discussion: If God created another being (let's say a "Son") God still couldn't love "son" above all "else."
Why?
God (now a Creator) would have to value Son above self. Son can't be greater than God in order to merit such "greater than" valuation.
Pretty simple stuff here. Not profound.
For God to hold somebody or some thing ABOVE ALL ELSE - there must be beings and things LESSER in existence so a proper valuation could apply.
In other words, God could only LOVE by creating inferiors to someone "Else."
How incompatible is creating an "inferior" with the idea of excellence??
Absolute!
Discussion:BEFORE God began creating...God was alone. I
n the middle of nothing...with "nothing" to think about....nobody to love....yet God was somehow different than nothing?
___
Where was God?God wasn't any
place. God wasn't doing any thing with anybody.
This Eternity of nothing leaves God with nothing todistinguish Himand no time to BE somebody, someplace.
NOTICE:
YOU SEE? God is disappearing from any conceivable definition of "I AM" if we take that one small step backward - BEFORE - creation.
____
TIME is the distance between EVENTS.
Without anything in existence there areno events.
Humans extrapolate a sense of regularity from repeated events (day, night, seasons).
No events / no Time.
____
ETERNAL GOD?
God could not be ETERNAL without events by which a sense of THEN V. NOW would be measured.
Review: Before CreationGod could not be ALL-KNOWING (there was
nothing to know).God could not be ALL-POWERFUL (nothing
over whichto exert power).
God could not be LOVE - nosuperior and inferior objectsof valuation existed.
____
Goodness, Morality, Ethics of a God of Justice
QUESTION: Without anyone to do BAD, how is there any Justice necessary?Before Creation, God could not be just, moral, loving or powerful. Why?
(No wrongs to right, no good or bad actions or events occurringrequiringjudgment or ethics.)
END OF THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
____
EpilogueIn what sense could GOD actually EXIST (before creation?)
To exist you must BE something rather than nothing.
How was God distinguishable from nothing?God would have no attributes, identity or context (as demonstrated above.)
A God of Love with nobody & nothing to love?
A God of wisdom with nothing to actually know?In order to BE God...there must already exist OTHER than God.
For there to be a dream there must be a dreamer.
Conclusion?Consequently, only in the mind of MAN can God find context and omniscience, power, etc.
It is man who dreams of GOD and... not ...the other way round.
Feel free to have fun with this.
_____
The above exercise can lead to interesting question of Doctrine such as:
If mankind is sinful, wretched, 'dust on the scales", "dung", and worthy of death --
on what basis could it be God's JUSTICE to "...So love the world..." that God would require his "Son" to die on behalf of such worthless humanity?
To love (as we said) is to "Value above all else" and mankind by God's own standard of perfection -- did not merit LOVE.
So this is where the "Christ died for our sins" breaks apart and dissolves.
Either God is a being of "Justice" and standards - or - a being who "values above all else" undeserving of love beings unfit to be thus valued.
All those Old Testament violations of God's standard suffered mightily.
The 400 years between the Old Testament and New were silent.
As the era of Jesus dawns we suddenly are introduced to a "new and improved" GOD with an entirely different personality, attributes, and standards.
There is an exception to the absolute no place visible 400 years earlier.
The "grace" of God is "unmerited favor". This plainly violates God's own standards of perfection and Justice.
In other words, you can't be GOD and be PERFECT and exercise the "highest value" of LOVE by applying it to "worthless wretches deserving death."
See? The logic - if you can call it that - of a "loving God" is entirely bereft of foundation.
But that's way too much on the plate to chew right now. -
26
NOAH and his impossible struggle to refute Math Physics & Earth Science
by Terry inalice laughed: "there's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things.".
"i daresay you haven't had much practice," said the queen.
"when i was younger, i always did it for half an hour a day.
-
-
Terry
Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Question:
How many inches per hour of global rainfall for 40 days and nights would it take to cover Mount Everest?
J A Paulos in his book: Innumeracy
The book of Genesis says of the Flood that "...all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered..." Taken literally, this seems to indicate that there were 10,000 to 20,000 feet of water on the surface of the Earth, equivalent to more than half a billion cubic miles of liquid! Since, according to biblical accounts, it rained for forty days and forty nights, or for only 960 hours, the rain must have fallen at a rate of at least fifteen feet per hour, certainly enough to sink any aircraft carrier, much less an ark with thousands of animals on board.
_______________________________________________________________
What World View-belief system did the writer of Noah and the ark have?**
Apply facts of physics to the story
If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.
If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.
A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.
Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.
[Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time? Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple.
We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C.
Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.
Questions raised: Population rise
How did the human population rebound so fast? Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood [Gen 10:25, 11:10-19]. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, rebuild the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc.
Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account? Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity. [Bailey, 1989, pp. 5-10; Isaak, 1997] For example, people survive on high land or trees in the myths about as often as on boats or rafts, and no other flood myth includes a covenant not to destroy all life again.
Why should we expect Genesis to be accurate? We know that other people's sacred stories change over time [Baaren, 1972] and that changes to the Genesis Flood story have occurred in later traditions [Ginzberg, 1909; Utley, 1961]. Is it not reasonable to assume that changes occurred between the story's origin and its being written down in its present form?
**
Hebrew cosmology (http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/ThreeTieredUniverse.htm) should be made to understand why the authors of Genesis considered the Flood possible. Above the flat earth there was a dome, called the firmament, to which the stars were attached and within which the sun and moon moved about. Above the firmament are the waters mentioned in Genesis 1:2 ('the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters'). This structure is also mentioned in Genesis 1:6-7. The firmament is perforated by 'the floodgates of heaven' (Genesis 7:11, 8:2). The Flood is caused by these floodgates being opened, and a rising-up of the waters beneath the earth (Genesis 1:6-7 and 7:11 again). This cosmology suggests that there is a very large amount of water available outside the firmament and beneath the Earth for use in the flood. In this cosmology, it is not hard to imagine how rainfall on the order of 800 cm/hour would be possible.
Unfortunately, the Hebrew mythology is not consistent with empirical observation. Creationists and flood catastrophists thus must resort to 'vapor canopies'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population computation
If we assume that girls start having babies at 15, and have one a year until they're 65, each girl has 50 babies. If half the babies are female, and everyone lives 200 years on average, it may be possible to reach a million people in the times required.
According to the Bible, Noah's sons had 14 sons themselves, so we can assume they also had 14 daughters. If we start with 10 reproducing men and 10 reproducing women 30 years after the flood, in another 50 years we could have 500 (250 men, 250 women). 50 years after that, there could be at least 20,000, which could swell to close to half a million in another 50 years. At this point, some of the "originals" start to die off, and life expectancy start to drop, to the newly-mandated 120 years, so the rate of growth may slow. Still, it shouldn't take more than a few centuries to have several million people available, which is all you need for the pyramid stories.
Global Flood - 2500 to 2300 BCE
Tower of Babel destroyed - 1928 BCE
Egypt Exodus - 1447 BCE
So that makes 372 to 572 years from the Flood to Babel tower : 10 million people in roughly 600 years
__________________________________________________________________________
Earlier stories compared to Genesis account
Gilgamesh: -
When a seventh day arrived
I sent forth a dove and released it.
The dove went off, but came back to me;
no perch was visible so it circled back to me.
Genesis 7
8 And he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground. 9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him to the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth
Gilgamesh
I sent forth a raven and released it.
The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back.
It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me.
Genesis 7
7 And he sent forth a raven, and it went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth
_______________________________________________________________________
Continuity of Troy through the Flood era
Troy I (3000 - 2500 BC)
The first civilians of Troy built their city on a hill of 16 meters. Today we'll only find a wall with two towers and some houses of Troy I. The houses were long and small and the walls 2,5 meter weight. Probably, Troy I burnt down.
Troy II (2500 - 2300 BC)
After Troy I burnt down, the civilians built a new city on the rests of the old city. The houses were bigger than these of Troy I. It was a rich Troy, which you can see on the portal way. Troy II had a radial of 55 meters. Troy II had much money so Schliemann believed this was the Troy of king Priam. Later Wilhelm Dorpfeld thought that Troy VI was the Troy of king Priam. Troy II is destroyed by an attacking nation.
From:http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache...=es&lr=lang_en
Archeology in Troy:
no evidence of a global flood in the layers of this city.
Nor in Jericho.
_______________________________________________________________________
Christians based their religion on Judaism
Judaism based their religion on Babylonian polytheism
Babylonians based their religion on Akkadian polytheism
Akkadians based their religion on Sumerian polytheism
Sumerian polytheism is formed from Ubaidian polytheism
this takes us back to around 5000 BCE
______
Conclusion?
To have a rational basis for accepting the Noah flood story in our Bible we must believe more than 6 impossible things before breakfast. -
11
The dangerous species: The True Believer
by Terry inthe age of enlightenment is worth a good look.
(the rise of reason, science, art, philosophy replacing superstition and 'belief.
")for millennia emperors and popes enforced compliance in our world.
-
-
Terry
My grandmother once spoke the following self-statement aloud:
"I am the humblest person I know of."
She couldn't understand my laughter.
