Discussion in 'The Bull Ring' started by Syriusly, Dec 24, 2018.
Will you please ask the rest of the mods to be our judges?
Do you agree to that?
If that's what your decide, just alert the active mod staff to close the thread and post their verdicts.
I'd use meister coyote willhaftawaite kat flacaltenn --- 5 will give a definitive verdict.. Unless they cop out and vote present.. LOL... Drum roll please..
I guess that makes you the referee
Thanks, I'm good with that if he is.
What say ye?
FYI, I've used 4 of my 10. You have used one. Agree?
I don't get to state your opinion- I do get to state the debate I agreed to take part in
The Bible correctly states that we were made from dust. Stardust to be specific. Did you know that the atoms in your body were present when space and time were created? Since that time they have merely changed form. It is amazing that the atoms in our body are 14 billion years old and were present when the universe was perfectly ordered and all matter and energy occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom.
Me: Quite the rationalization to say that 'dust' equals atoms.
Me: Frankly Genesis 2 could have said that man was made from ferns and you would be proclaiming here that ferns were really stardust and telling us the same shtick.
Yes- atoms are amazing- and the Bible doesn't mention them once.
You: Let’s take this debates to the bull ring.
Do you accept the challenge?
This was the challenge I accepted in that thread- and is what I specifically spelled out in the title of this debate.
I made no mistake- I very explicitly spelled out the debate I had accepted in the first post- which matches exactly the verbiage from the thread where you challenged me to bring it here.
I am not interested in a 'debate' that goes all over the place.
If you don't want to accept the original terms I agreed to- I will just ignore your posts that are off topic and respond to the ones that are.
You can do whatever you will do.
I am comfortable with my original position of no judges. I don't need validation from judges.
That was me saying we were literally created from star dust. The Torah explains that in an allegorical fashion. Ancient man realized that he came from the material world, that he was created as in a creature. Ancient man realized he was a product of creation and that his creator was spirit. It's the argument I am making right now.
This is the discussion you have been waiting for. This is the discussion you are going to get.
Point #3: We need to stop reading the Bible like we think it is a fairy tale. We will never make a fair assessment on whether spirit created the material world or not using that technique.
So if we start from the belief that the first eleven chapters of the Torah are an allegorical account of world history before the great migration from Mesopotamia - which was an actual historical event - then the first eleven chapters of the Torah takes on new meaning. Seen in this light these accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times. Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations. Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember. Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong. Most people don't even realize this wisdom is in the Torah because they read it critically instead of searching for the wisdom that ancient man knew and found important enough to include in his account of world history.
We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom. Shame on us.
Point #4: The closest thing we can come to perceiving God is that God is consciousness without a body.
At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.
So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.
If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.
But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.
Point #5: A case for spirit creating the material world can be made by examining the evidence that we have at our disposal.
So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.
We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create. George Wald
The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding her tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take more seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.
All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.
Great- so we are back on track discussing Genesis, and the orgin of man.
We have no disagreement with the position that the atoms that all humans are made from originally came from stars. Literally every material thing that exists in the universe is likely a product of a star.
Genesis though is very specific in the details of the creation of the universe, of creatures, and of man- though Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 somewhat contradict each other in the details.
But if the dust in the Bible is meant to be an allegory for 'star dust'- and we are in agreement that everything on earth is created from 'star dust'- then why is dust referred to only in the case of the creation of man? And that only in the creation story of Genesis 2.
As a matter of fact, Genesis 1 doesn't even recognize that the Sun is a star- or reference either as the source of dust.
In Genesis 1- everything is created by God- at God's whim- with just his command- no need for 'star dust'
Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” 21So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind.
In Genesis 2, God uses dust to create Man- and the creatures from the 'ground'- not dust this time- but the creatures are all created after Man- again where the allegory falls short of the scientific record.
To go back to your original statement- that the Bible 'correctly states that we are made of 'dust'- 'star dust'- the Bible doesn't say 'star dust' - even though Genesis specifically refers to the stars- and it doesn't use dust to refer to the creation of any of the other things that God supposedly created- so this just appears to me, to be a rationalization on your part. If Genesis had intended to refer to 'star dust' the vocabulary existed to say exactly that, and if this reference of dust in the creation of man was a reference to 'star dust' then logically the same term would have been used for the creation of everything else mentioned in Genesis- since everything is formed from atoms.
But Genesis doesn't use the term 'star dust', it doesn't use the term dust for the creation of anything but man(and then only in Genesis 2), so there is no rational linkage in Genesis to presume that the Bible is referencing Dust=Star Dust= Atoms.
Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong. He did not put this belief there and he can't get rid of it.
If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.
Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.
So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.
Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.
If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow it ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.
Point #7: We can use our own experiences to understand what revelations are.
If we start with the premise that spirit created the material world and created laws of nature which not only predestined beings that know and create to arise but also to mold or evolve their level of consciousness, then it is not a giant leap to believe that besides the constant feedback we receive from the universe that either correct or reinforce our behaviors that we would also receive revelations from the spirit which connects but is not a part of the material world.
The data overwhelmingly shows that man is a spiritual being. It is for good reason that David Foster Wallace said that we all worship something and the only choice in the matter is what we choose to worship. We are literally hardwired for it. Throughout history every society has overwhelmingly held the belief that man is more than just matter and that there is a higher power than man. When we look at the data today we see that more and more people are rejecting organized religion but have not abandoned their belief that they are more than just matter or that there is a force which connects or binds us all. From the atheist's vantage point these beliefs exist because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that spirituality offers a functional advantage over materialism. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that spirituality is a behavior which leads to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, it would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for spirituality has not diminished. In fact, the more materialistic we became the less satisfied we became.
So it is for good reason that we should keep an open mind about the possibility of the creator of space and time communicating with his creatures outside of the laws of nature which act as compensating and reinforcing laws of behavior. It would be illogical to believe that the intelligence behind creation of space and time would not provide some level of instruction or guidance. The question is what would that actually look like. And for that answer we must look at our own experiences as a guide to the answer.
From my own personal experiences I have had revelations that when they popped into my head I instantly recognized that they were true. Mind you I am not describing religious revelations, but ordinary everyday kind of things about my ordinary everyday issues that I am confronted with. Usually they happen in the morning when I am in that halfway state of being asleep and being awake. There is only one time when we are not conscious of self and that is when we are asleep. So it makes perfect sense to me that that is the time I am most receptive to the spirit which binds us but is not a part of the material world. This is how I believe revelations work. And this is how I believe ancient man received his revelations. Not a burning bush, or an angel appearing, but ordinary men being in a state of mind receptive to the spirit that binds us but is not a part of the material world. In this light, I can imagine ancient man having an image of how creation of space and time unfolded. Not having the scientific knowledge that we have today, he captured the allegorical account of creation in his own way. So while others may nit pick the exact details or sequence because it does not satisfy their modern view of the world, they miss out on the bigger picture which is that ancient man pretty much nailed what we know today. Specifically, that the universe did have a beginning and that man is a product of the universe.
And lastly, let's not forget or diminish the importance of ancient man believing so highly in these accounts that he passed them down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years. I can't think of anything which is comparable. It seems to me that it would be a travesty to dismiss these accounts as fairy tales.
Summary and Conclusion:
Genesis is the allegorical account of the history of the world that all people share. Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis is the allegorical account of creation. Specifically, that the universe did have a beginning and that man is a product of the universe. We need to stop reading the Bible like we think it is a fairy tale. These are allegorical accounts of history that ancient man deemed important enough to orally pass down from generation to generation for thousands of years. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. We are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning which is why some modern men view these accounts as fairy tales instead of what they really are; ancient man's allegorical account of world history.
The closest thing we can come to perceiving God is that God is consciousness without a body. A case for spirit creating the material world can be made by examining the evidence that we have at our disposal. Some of the most compelling evidence is man's belief in universal right and wrong and his unwillingness to abandon this concept even when he violates it.
Good reasons do exist for us to keep an open mind about the possibility of the creator of space and time communicating with us. We can use our own experiences as proxies to better understand what form these revelations may take. When taken in this light, ancient man's revelation that the universe did have a beginning and that man is a product of the universe is not that far fetched.
Separate names with a comma.