NationStates Jolt Archive

The creation story, specifically the fall of man, is monotheism's explanation for why the world sucks. It tells Jews, Christians and Muslims why their awesome God didnt make the world a luxurious paradise and why we must toil in the field to survive, why childbirth is painful and why we suffer disease and natural disasters. If you do not accept the creation myth then what is your alternative explanation?

They accept it. They just don't accept it as a scientific account of the creation of the world, but a literary one.

The creation story, specifically the fall of man, is monotheism's explanation for why the world sucks. It tells Jews, Christians and Muslims why their awesome God didnt make the world a luxurious paradise and why we must toil in the field to survive, why childbirth is painful and why we suffer disease and natural disasters. If you do not accept the creation myth then what is your alternative explanation?
The creation myth and the story of the Garden of Eden are two different stories. It's like asking ok, if Goldilocks ate the porrage and sat in the chairs, what happened to the basket of goodies that Little Red Riding Hood was taking to her grandma's house?

By creation myth I was including the whole Adam and Eve story. Ive never met a theist who believes in Adam and Eve's fall from grace and not 6 day creation. If they do then that opens up even more questions.
Ok they may be different stories but one is a direct continuation of the other and they are both vital for understanding the world from a monotheistic point of view.

What is meant by they accept it in a literary way? Do they think it is a metaphor? If so for what? What event did cause God to (for example)punish womenfolk with agonising childbirth forever?

By creation myth I was including the whole Adam and Eve story. Ive never met a theist who believes in Adam and Eve's fall from grace and not 6 day creation. well, you just did. :D If they do then that opens up even more questions.
Ok they may be different stories but one is a direct continuation of the other and they are both vital for understanding the world from a monotheistic point of view.
no they are not in continuation with one another. one talks about the creation of the world. the other talks about man and god. One celebrates the wonder of creation. how everything is tied together, the other about Man's original purpose and the sin that seperated Man from God.
What is meant by they accept it in a literary way?I'm assuming you're talking about the literary acceptance of the Creation story. dunno, I don't think like that, so I can't tell you what they 'Mean' my it. Do they think it is a metaphor?A metaphor to Evolution? I believe Evolution is man explaining how God created the world. like a receipe can explain how a cheif created an entree. If so for what? what what? why a metaphor? remember, in those days, things were generally passed down via storytelling. Literacy was reserved to the nobility/rich/priests. so stories with hidden lessons were created to help teach. What event did cause God to (for example)punish womenfolk with agonising childbirth forever? the first sin. Remember, it was Eve who took the first bite, and also it was Eve who said "See, nothing bad happened, go ahead... " and before you say "what about Adam?" He to was punnished to till the earth for sustinance.

I honestly beleive that "the fall" occured when they (early hominids) evolved into "true" humans. They started agriculture (toil the land), and animal husbandry and selective breeding (knowlege of good and bad (what traits you want in an animal).

Reality simply is.

Man simply is.

God simply is.

Pardoxes only bother you if you let them bother you.
I don't let them bother me.
(And I don't subscribe to creationism.)

What is meant by they accept it in a literary way? Do they think it is a metaphor? If so for what? What event did cause God to (for example)punish womenfolk with agonising childbirth forever?

I'd assume that if people are Christians who don't beleive in the creation as laid down in the Bible, then they'd believe in science? I can't see anyone making up alternative excuses for the pain of childbirth other than "The lady is trying to squeeze something the size of a grapefruit out of a space which ain't all that big".

I'm a Catholic, though I do believe in Science. I don't take the Bible literally, especially the Old Testament. I'm not sure if it's a metaphor, I think it's more likely that things like the creation myth came about because simply people needed to believe in SOMETHING. Human's are curious, any child asking "why is the sky blue?" will prove that, and since there was no way they could know about things like the "Big Bang", they came up with simpler creation myths. The Bible is written by man. It's been translated, edited, mistranslated, and edited some more time and time again through the ages, I think taking it as "gospel truth" (sorry, couldn't help it :p ) would be a big mistake.

Reality simply is.

Man simply is.

God simply is.

Pardoxes only bother you if you let them bother you.
I don't let them bother me.
(And I don't subscribe to creationism.)
Yay, denial!

Yay, denial!

Here is a nice paradox.

A piece of land surrounded by sea is an ocean, right?
A body of water surrounded by land is a lake, right?
So, imagine a globe of which one hemisphere is water, and the other hemisphere is land.
Q: Is the land hemisphere an island, or is the water hemisphere a lake?

Answer: who cares?

By creation myth I was including the whole Adam and Eve story. Ive never met a theist who believes in Adam and Eve's fall from grace and not 6 day creation. If they do then that opens up even more questions.
Ok they may be different stories but one is a direct continuation of the other and they are both vital for understanding the world from a monotheistic point of view.

What is meant by they accept it in a literary way? Do they think it is a metaphor? If so for what?
"Literary way" means as part of a work of fiction. Myth is such a work of fiction, one that conveys a truth. In this case, the "truth" of it is not that God created the world, but simply that humans have a relationship with God as the creator. Yes, that is a trope.

Genesis sets up that relationship, so that other stories make more sense in context.

What event did cause God to (for example)punish womenfolk with agonising childbirth forever?
Life.

Life is the event.

Here is a nice paradox.

A piece of land surrounded by sea is an ocean, right?
A body of water surrounded by land is a lake, right?
So, imagine a globe of which one hemisphere is water, and the other hemisphere is land.
Q: Is the land hemisphere an island, or is the water hemisphere a lake?

Answer: who cares?
lol

Yes, and yes.

Yay, denial!
denial? how so?

he didn't choose to deny that there were paradoxes he just chose not to let them bother him..........he isn't denying anything.

junii the creation story tells us where adam and eve came from. If you reject this story then where do you think they came from?
Also where do you see the hand of God in evolution? Evolution seems to be able to progress naturalistically. If God was the driving force behind evolution why didnt he do it better?

I think that if there is God then the Adam and Eve stories must be true otherwise the world would be a much better place. Unless one believes in a god who wants man to have a crap time down here. And if they are true then God is a judgemental megalomaniac.

lol

Yes, and yes.

See? The answers are all sorta wrong.
But does it REALLY matter?
As I see it - the relevant part of Christianity is salvation.
The how and the why are beyond my understanding.
( I'm sure you recall how I feel about 'why' )

And my Ch'an-part strongly discourages 'pointless' questions - unless it is for pure entertainment.
Koan's exist for enjoyment ;)

One day, a wise man was meditating amongst his disciples.
After much contemplation, he pronounced:
'no sentence that contains the word God can be true'
His least favourite disciple asked him to apply that sentence to itself.
The wise man retorted after several hours of thinking:
'sentences that contain the word God are false'
His least favourite pupil then said:
'this sentence contains the word God. Is this sentence then false?'
In reply, the wise man broke his begging-bowl upon his pupil's head.
And thus became the True Founder of Zen.

denial? how so?

he didn't choose to deny that there were paradoxes he just chose not to let them bother him..........he isn't denying anything.
A paradox only exists because it is wrong, it doesn't make sense.

To accept it is madness. To deny it is to ignore it.

willamena, God punishes us for living?

willamena, God punishes us for living?
Yes, according to the Bible.

Life is not a sin, and hence I am not a Christian.

Yes, according to the Bible.

Who's Bible? The Christian Bible?

Who's Bible? The Christian Bible?
That's the one, the one with the big "B".

Reality simply is.

Man simply is.

God simply is.

Pardoxes only bother you if you let them bother you.
I don't let them bother me.
(And I don't subscribe to creationism.)

God maybe is, nobody knows.
I didn't want to say nothing 'cause I'm atheist but as I read your statement I cannot avoid. Reality exist (in matrix, but it exist ;) ), so man but god is just a believe, so we cannot know

That's the one, the one with the big "B".

Good thing I'm a Jew then. My God doesn't do things like that.

A paradox only exists because it is wrong, it doesn't make sense.
not actually, a conflict would exist because something was wrong, not a paradox.

Conflict- if A is true, then B has to be false

Paradox- A is true, B is true, but if A is true then B must be false, if B is true then A must be false, but A and B are true.

My favorite paradox would be "When you speak in absolutes, you are always wrong"

Because, always is an absolute you would be wrong in using it, but it's also true that you are wrong even though you did use it........... see?

To accept it is madness.
we will have to disagree there.

To deny it is to ignore it.
not really, to deny is to say it doesn't exist, to ignore is to say it does exist but you aren't spending any energy worrying about it, there is quite a difference.
I know that earthquakes exist, but I don't spend any time preparing for one because I don't live on a fault line, I ignore them, I don't deny them.

The "Liar's Paradox" (My favorite)


The following statement is true.
The previous statement is false.

junii the creation story tells us where adam and eve came from. If you reject this story then where do you think they came from?Ahh, now I understand. It's not Rejection of the Creation story, but the literal acceptance of the creation story that I don't believe in. I do not believe it took "6 Days," nor do I "believe that Dinosaurs don't exsist because the Bible doesn't mention them." I do believe God did set in motion the conditions to create Life on Earth. You can believe that the Garden of Eden was a Physical place, or you can believe that the Garden was more of a metaphor to indicate how things stood when man and God walked together. either one doesn't make the Story of the Fall of Man any more or less true.
Also where do you see the hand of God in evolution? Evolution seems to be able to progress naturalistically. If God was the driving force behind evolution why didnt he do it better? we only assume it could be better because we cannot see what God has in store for us. we assume all the faults and evils of this world is proof that God does not exsist. I say that if you look closely enough, there will be examples of Gods work shining through. I think that if there is God then the Adam and Eve stories must be true otherwise the world would be a much better place. Unless one believes in a god who wants man to have a crap time down here. And if they are true then God is a judgemental megalomaniac.If Adam and Eve was a true story, then it explains why the world isn't a better place...

Is a father a Judgemental Megalomaniac when his child needs to be punnished? does a Time Out mean that the parents are Goosestepping Nazi's? when the parents sets rules and punnishes when the rules are broken, does that make them dictators?

Do you know that one only suffers if one chooses to suffer? I've seen and have felt the joy of fellowship, I've felt the bracing God gives through rough and challenging times. Unfortunatly, God willl not help those who do not ask him for help, and in order to do so, one must have faith.

Yes, according to the Bible.

Life is not a sin, and hence I am not a Christian.
Where is that stated in the Bible?

God maybe is, nobody knows.
I didn't want to say nothing 'cause I'm atheist but as I read your statement I cannot avoid. Reality exist (in matrix, but it exist ;) ), so man but god is just a believe, so we cannot know


I know He exists, for reasons that satisfy me.
I never do anything as foolish ( or so I hope sincerely ) as asking you to subscribe to my reasons.

I know He exists, for reasons that satisfy me.
I never do anything as foolish ( or so I hope sincerely ) as asking you to subscribe to my reasons.


You believe, think, guess He exists but you have no knowledge. I'm glad you're not looking for my appproval but you cannot put at the same level the existence of men and god, sorry.

not actually, a conflict would exist because something was wrong, not a paradox.

Conflict- if A is true, then B has to be false

Paradox- A is true, B is true, but if A is true then B must be false, if B is true then A must be false, but A and B are true.

My favorite paradox would be "When you speak in absolutes, you are always wrong"

Because, always is an absolute you would be wrong in using it, but it's also true that you are wrong even though you did use it........... see?


we will have to disagree there.


not really, to deny is to say it doesn't exist, to ignore is to say it does exist but you aren't spending any energy worrying about it, there is quite a difference.
I know that earthquakes exist, but I don't spend any time preparing for one because I don't live on a fault line, I ignore them, I don't deny them.
So, it is not madness to accept that A = B and that only one of A or B is both true and false? We have different ideas of what madness is.

To say something doesn't exist is to ignore that it does.

To spend no time worrying, and hence thinking, about it is to ignore it. There is no significant difference.

It is not the earthquake you are ignoring but the possibility of one. Ignoring = not thinking about it. At the point when you admit that there could be one, you are no longer ignoring the possibility. There is no significant difference between ignoring the possibility and dening, for the moment, that it could happen. And if an earthquake were happening, to ignore it would be madness.

You believe, think, guess He exists but you have no knowledge. I'm glad you're not looking for my appproval but you cannot put at the same level the existence of men and god, sorry.

I'm sorry. I do know. Based on personal relevation.
However ( for reasons I think you're competent to grasp ) I don't expect you to think so as well.
Meanwhile, I can put it entirely on the same level as the statement: eggs exist, even though you cannot.

You believe, think, guess He exists but you have no knowledge. I'm glad you're not looking for my appproval but you cannot put at the same level the existence of men and god, sorry.

You believe, think, guess, that you exist, but have no knowlege. Experience can be misleading, thus reality is uncertain. Man and God can be put on the same level of existence.

I believe in Gods, but I don't believe any of them created the world. Quite the opposite in fact - they, just like all other life, be it physical or spiritual, would of course never have existed if the universe had not caused/allowed them to exist. More specifically, Gods are an expression of human existence and culture - everywhere humans exist or have existed, we find Gods and spirits. As for the morality/"existence of evil" issue, i'll quote something I once wrote on the subject:

God cares not
for your morality.
She cares not
for purposeful deaths
nor impinged freedoms.
She is the God of
LIFE.
The living of Life
has forever implied
Suffering and Hate.

Human existence is just naturally sucky at times. This is the way of things. Any Deity we worship needs to reflect this; a purely benevolent God is only half a God imo.

I do believe God did set in motion the conditions to create Life on Earth. .
Why do you believe this?


You can believe that the Garden of Eden was a Physical place, or you can believe that the Garden was more of a metaphor to indicate how things stood when man and God walked together. either one doesn't make the Story of the Fall of Man any more or less true..
I would disagree the story either happened or it didnt. As a metaphor it may have relevance but is not a true story.

Is a father a Judgemental Megalomaniac when his child needs to be punnished? does a Time Out mean that the parents are Goosestepping Nazi's? when the parents sets rules and punnishes when the rules are broken, does that make them dictators?
There is a world of difference from a child's time-out and the agonizing and terrible punishments that your god has chosen to inflict on man for all generations.

Do you know that one only suffers if one chooses to suffer? ... Unfortunatly, God willl not help those who do not ask him for help, and in order to do so, one must have faith.
Nonsense i'm afraid, everyone suffers, birth is suffering, everyone from the most faithful to the most faithless suffers disease and natural disasters and always has these are not the fault of man put a part of the world that your so-called god made for us all. And if this god chooses only to help those who come begging to him for help then i still have issues with it.

You believe, think, guess He exists but you have no knowledge. I'm glad you're not looking for my appproval but you cannot put at the same level the existence of men and god, sorry.
actually I know what Bogmarsh is talking about. the proof God laid on me is one that I can only verbally share. inadequate in my opinion on a forum setting. but several... alot actually, of people also had the same experience with me at the same time.

You believe, think, guess, that you exist, but have no knowlege. Experience can be misleading, thus reality is uncertain. Man and God can be put on the same level of existence.


Incorrrect.

The evidence of man, is all around us, you cannot ignore it, and everyone can agree.

God's existance, requires faith.

Incorrrect.

The evidence of man, is all around us, you cannot ignore it, and everyone can agree.

God's existance, requires faith.

Thanks a lot!

I think Cowham is taking the Adam and Eve story too literally. My take on the story, as an atheist (more or less), is that it is a metaphor for existance.

The first creation is notion of existance - the difference between light and dark.
The next is the material - the Earth
And next creation is the most basic form on life
New and more complex forms of life are created.
Finally Man is created. However, Man seems to be incomplete.
So Woman is created. Note that in an advancing steps of creation Woman is the last creation. This could suggest that feminity is superior to masculinity. However, for all her differences she has many similarities, so perhaps it is best to view Woman and Man as complementary parts of a whole.

This first stage of Humanity represents childhood and innocence. But Humanity still seems to be incomplete. Afterall Humanity was created in God's image, but they are not God themselves. The Serpent and the tree of Knowledge do not necessarily represent evil, rather they just represent the progression to the next stage of Humanity.

In the second stage the cloak of innocence is lifted and Humanity percieves the world around it in a different way. We begin to understand what death, pain, love, friendship, reason and many other things are (Think how as a child we can not comprehend death [death is often explained to a child as a long holiday]). Knowledge is intially seen to be useless to Humanity, all it does is expose the pain in the world around us, but it ultimately makes us stronger (see the Greek Myth of Pandora's Box). With our new found knowledge and strength separates us from God as he can not ever provide Humanity what it seeks - independence.

Finally the last stage of Humanity is age and death. Humanity reconises its limits and doesn't feel the need to pursue complete independence. We have learnt to trust and allow ourselves to rely on others. In death, heaven is for those who have been able to achieve this state, and hell is for the lost souls who have not been able to, or have refused to move on to this stage.


Adam and Eve is a very interesting story which helps us to understand who we are. Creationism is utterly useless. Creationism can not be used to explain the present or predict the future, it is just a statement, not even an analysis, of history.

(I think that covers most of what I think on the subject. It might not be as clear as I want it to be. But it might take decades to make it as clear as I'd like it to be)

Why do you believe this?Personal Experience with his Grace, Power and Glory. personal account so take it as you will. I would disagree the story either happened or it didnt. As a metaphor it may have relevance but is not a true story. and I cannot force you to believe what you will. As I said, To me, Eden is a metaphysical state of being. say like 'Nirvana' a state of calm and peace. one that sin cast man out of.There is a world of difference from a child's time-out and the agonizing and terrible punishments that your god has chosen to inflict on man for all generations. ejection from Eden = Time out. needing to till the earth/pain of Childbirth = Grounded and spanked. but God forgives if one asks for forgiveness.Nonsense i'm afraid, everyone suffers, birth is suffering, everyone from the most faithful to the most faithless suffers disease and natural disasters and always has these are not the fault of man put a part of the world that your so-called god made for us all. And if this god chooses only to help those who come begging to him for help then i still have issues with it.then that is your view on life, and with such a view, all you will see is suffering.

I think Cowham is taking the Adam and Eve story too literally. My take on the story, as an atheist (more or less), is that it is a metaphor for existance.

The first creation is notion of existance - the difference between light and dark.
The next is the material - the Earth
And next creation is the most basic form on life
New and more complex forms of life are created.
Finally Man is created. However, Man seems to be incomplete.
So Woman is created. Note that in an advancing steps of creation Woman is the last creation. This could suggest that feminity is superior to masculinity. However, for all her differences she has many similarities, so perhaps it is best to view Woman and Man as complementary parts of a whole.

This first stage of Humanity represents childhood and innocence. But Humanity still seems to be incomplete. Afterall Humanity was created in God's image, but they are not God themselves. The Serpent and the tree of Knowledge do not necessarily represent evil, rather they just represent the progression to the next stage of Humanity.

In the second stage the cloak of innocence is lifted and Humanity percieves the world around it in a different way. We begin to understand what death, pain, love, friendship, reason and many other things are (Think how as a child we can not comprehend death [death is often explained to a child as a long holiday]). Knowledge is intially seen to be useless to Humanity, all it does is expose the pain in the world around us, but it ultimately makes us stronger (see the Greek Myth of Pandora's Box). With our new found knowledge and strength separates us from God as he can not ever provide Humanity what it seeks - independence.

Finally the last stage of Humanity is age and death. Humanity reconises its limits and doesn't feel the need to pursue complete independence. We have learnt to trust and allow ourselves to rely on others. In death, heaven is for those who have been able to achieve this state, and hell is for the lost souls who have not been able to, or have refused to move on to this stage.


Adam and Eve is a very interesting story which helps us to understand who we are. Creationism is utterly useless. Creationism can not be used to explain the present or predict the future, it is just a statement, not even an analysis, of history.

(I think that covers most of what I think on the subject. It might not be as clear as I want it to be. But it might take decades to make it as clear as I'd like it to be)
Nice. :)

Incorrrect.

The evidence of man, is all around us, you cannot ignore it, and everyone can agree.

God's existance, requires faith.

Balderdash.
The evidence of man; surrounding me, might be a figment of my imagination.

Not even the beloved statement: Cogito, ergo sum, is logically correct, as Emmanuel Kant pointed out.

Therefore, even the concepts 'us' and 'I' are articles of faith, not irreproachable fact.

actually I know what Bogmarsh is talking about. the proof God laid on me is one that I can only verbally share. inadequate in my opinion on a forum setting. but several... alot actually, of people also had the same experience with me at the same time.

Pretty much so...

Incorrrect.

The evidence of man, is all around us, you cannot ignore it, and everyone can agree.

God's existance, requires faith.
Incorrect.

But is reality real? If it is not, then you cannot be sure anything exists. Even yourself.

Expirience is misleading. There are two ways to be sure of reality. One is reason, the other is expirience. If one rejects God on account of expirence (or lack thereof), then one must use expirence to prove reality. However, as I previously stated, experience is misleading. Because expirience is misleading/unreliable, then grounding your view of reality on it is faulty.

Where is that stated in the Bible?
What we have today is life --we are born, live, love, hurt, bear children and die. What Adam and Eve had in the Garden of Eden was not-life; in order to gain life, they had to exit from the Garden. They wouldn't leave, so God pushed them out.

Eve's name means "life". Eve is the body, Adam the spirit. Eve is carnal nature, and it is on her that the pain of childbirth falls (funny if it had been Adam, eh?), and it is on her to represent the birth of life in the story of the Garden.

Balderdash.
The evidence of man; surrounding me, might be a figment of my imagination.

Not even the beloved statement: Cogito, ergo sum, is logically correct, as Emmanuel Kant pointed out.

Therefore, even the concepts 'us' and 'I' are articles of faith, not irreproachable fact.

At last, someone who can use philosphy in a debate about God!

Balderdash.
The evidence of man; surrounding me, might be a figment of my imagination.

Not even the beloved statement: Cogito, ergo sum, is logically correct, as Emmanuel Kant pointed out.

Therefore, even the concepts 'us' and 'I' are articles of faith, not irreproachable fact.


Wether a figment or not, Reality is perception.
You cant really avoid perceiving evidence of man.

One must choose to make God real.

"I think therefore I am", is nice but rather pedestrian, small wonder a guy like Kant tore it to shreds.

I prefer "In vino veritas".

At last, someone who can use philosphy in a debate about God!

Thank you :D.

The creation story, specifically the fall of man, is monotheism's explanation for why the world sucks. It tells Jews, Christians and Muslims why their awesome God didnt make the world a luxurious paradise and why we must toil in the field to survive, why childbirth is painful and why we suffer disease and natural disasters. If you do not accept the creation myth then what is your alternative explanation?

1. Science explains just about everything about how the universe was created physically, except for that 10^-36 of a second just into the Big Bang - and no proven explanation of what was before the Big Bang. So I fit God in there - the kickoff, so to speak, was his doing. It is as valid and non-proven an explanation for what happened before as anything that science can provide.

2. The reason the universe is the way it is, and people the way they are, is because we all have free will. Everyone and everything in the Universe is a product of free will - science proves that even by observing something (or choosing to observe something) we change outcomes. So I think that all the misery, suffering, etc., is largely something that we do to each other and to ourselves.

Wether a figment or not, Reality is perception.
You cant really avoid perceiving evidence of man.

One must choose to make God real.

"I think therefore I am", is nice but rather pedestrian, small wonder a guy like Kant tore it to shreds.

I prefer "In vino veritas".

Reality is perception?
*blinks*
at the risk of using incredibly bad latin:
in cuicuimodo vino comperiistis iste veritas?


Reality is perception...
I perceive God to exist. Would you accept that as evidence of God's existence?
Let's say that I perceive all atheists as evil demonworshippers.
Would you then say that this perception is evidence that all atheists are evil demonworshippers?

What we have today is life --we are born, live, love, hurt, bear children and die. What Adam and Eve had in the Garden of Eden was not-life; in order to gain life, they had to exit from the Garden. They wouldn't leave, so God pushed them out.first, your point isn't stated in the bible, but it's an interpretation of the story.
Second. God didn't want Adam and Eve to leave the Garden of Eden. but they had to leave because of the first sin.
Eve's name means "life". Eve is the body, Adam the spirit. Eve is carnal nature, and it is on her that the pain of childbirth falls (funny if it had been Adam, eh?), and it is on her to represent the birth of life in the story of the Garden. *thinks back to an old Cosby Show episode where the men were pregnant.* "Did it Hurt??? Didn't you hear me SCREAMING in there... and whenever I think about where it [baby] came out from... AAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!" :D :D

Gotta admit tho, that is an interesting interpretation of the Garden of Eden story.

Keeping with your interpretation, why wouldn't Adam would be the Body and Eve the spirit, seeing that Eve was created out of Adam and that the Corrupter tempted Eve, (the Spirit) and thus causes Adam (the Body) to stray.

Incorrect.

But is reality real? If it is not, then you cannot be sure anything exists. Even yourself.

Expirience is misleading. There are two ways to be sure of reality. One is reason, the other is expirience. If one rejects God on account of expirence (or lack thereof), then one must use expirence to prove reality. However, as I previously stated, experience is misleading. Because expirience is misleading/unreliable, then grounding your view of reality on it is faulty.

If experience is misleading, as you say, you automatically invalidate any shreds of proof of God's existance.

How so?

The only way anyone can "prove" there is a God, is by saying they have "experienced" a relationship with him.
They cant often describe this relationship, in a tangible way, but they nevertheless espouse an intimate experience with God.

Take a look at any of these similar threads, including this one, someones already used that line.

Obviously, if experience is truly misleading, then no Christian, can have any claim to any such contact with any god, of any sort.

Is that what you are implying?

Wether a figment or not, Reality is perception.
You cant really avoid perceiving evidence of man.

One must choose to make God real.

"I think therefore I am", is nice but rather pedestrian, small wonder a guy like Kant tore it to shreds.

I prefer "In vino veritas".

Descartes' philosphy was not that simple, and it took effort to "tear it to shreds." The whole of the logic behind it is not predestrian, and rather well thought out.

Nice. :)Thank you. Though it looks like thread has moved off in another direction. Oh well. It was probably worth the effort to write just for my own benefit.

If experience is misleading, as you say, you automatically invalidate any shreds of proof of God's existance.

How so?

The only way anyone can "prove" there is a God, is by saying they have "experienced" a relationship with him.
They cant often describe this relationship, in a tangible way, but they nevertheless espouse an intimate experience with God.

Take a look at any of these similar threads, including this one, someones already used that line.

Obviously, if experience is truly misleading, then no Christian, can have any claim to any such contact with any god, of any sort.

Is that what you are implying?

That is not what I am implying. None of the sort.

If you paid attention, you'd have noted that I also mentioned reason as a way of proving existance.

God's existence has been proven logically.

Descartes' philosphy was not that simple, and it took effort to "tear it to shreds." The whole of the logic behind it is not predestrian, and rather well thought out.


Perhaps "pedestrian" was the wrong word....im tired.

Infinite dunes, for the most part I agree with you. I do not believe the story has no significance as a metaphor. It's an interesting story monotheist or not. But my issue is that in the light of the fact that this event didnt happen what is the monotheists explanation for the world not being particularly great?

Junni: "Personal Experience with his Grace, Power and Glory. personal account so take it as you will. "
When did you have personal experience of god setting in motion the conditions for the creation of life on earth?

"Eden is a metaphysical state of being"
So you do accept that the Eden story never happened? If it is a metaphysical state of being and not an actual time and place.

You seem to worship a very cruel and harsh god who dishes out nasty punishments to innocent people (we are not all guilty of adam and eve's sins) and supposedly only relents the punishment to those who blindly worship him, and even then only after they die.

"then that is your view on life, and with such a view, all you will see is suffering."
I see life as it is and i rejoice in that. I can understand and explain the great and terrible parts of this life. Theism's explanation for the bad is that god is punishing us all for an event that happened 6000ya or is just nasty to us anyway both of which are grounds to reject it.

Perhaps "pedestrian" was the wrong word....im tired.


diutissime vino?

*fluffle*

That is not what I am implying. None of the sort.

If you paid attention, you'd have noted that I also mentioned reason as a way of proving existance.

God's existence has been proven logically.


I heard what you said...you said "Because expirience is misleading/unreliable, then grounding your view of reality on it is faulty."

But then, why isnt basing your views of religion on experience, equally as faulty?

You must see the hoplessly circular logic in your statements.

I heard what you said...you said "Because expirience is misleading/unreliable, then grounding your view of reality on it is faulty."

But then, why isnt basing your views of religion on experience, equally as faulty?

You must see the hoplessly circular logic in your statements.

As you said: perception = reality.

Now, I put it to you:
I perceive you as a person incapable of applying proper spelling, proper reasoning, or cogent thinking.
So... does my perception make that your reality?

Junni: "Personal Experience with his Grace, Power and Glory. personal account so take it as you will. "
When did you have personal experience of god setting in motion the conditions for the creation of life on earth?more to the point that I had proof that HE exsists. and so it leaves the possiblity that he did have a hand in creation.
"Eden is a metaphysical state of being"
So you do accept that the Eden story never happened? If it is a metaphysical state of being and not an actual time and place. I believe it happened, but like Creation. not exactly or literally the way it was written.You seem to worship a very cruel and harsh god who dishes out nasty punishments to innocent people (we are not all guilty of adam and eve's sins) and supposedly only relents the punishment to those who blindly worship him, and even then only after they die. no, I worship a kind and loving God who had to mete out punnishments for sins. who will forgive when asked for forgiveness, who allows man their pride, even tho it may carry man away from HIM.
"then that is your view on life, and with such a view, all you will see is suffering."
I see life as it is and i rejoice in that. I can understand and explain the great and terrible parts of this life. Theism's explanation for the bad is that god is punishing us all for an event that happened 6000ya or is just nasty to us anyway both of which are grounds to reject it.look back at your argument.

then you will realize that the one question you are asking is.

"Why doesn't God treat us like Helpless children"

Nonsense i'm afraid, everyone suffers, birth is suffering, everyone from the most faithful to the most faithless suffers disease and natural disasters and always has these are not the fault of man put a part of the world that your so-called god made for us all. And if this god chooses only to help those who come begging to him for help then i still have issues with it.The whole premise of that statement is "Why does God allow all these bad/nasty things to happen to anyone?"

the answer is simple. I don't know. I don't pretend to know what God thinks about, I never claimed to read the mind of God. however, if you should find HIM, perhaps you can ask.

and some people tend to want someone to hold their hand and solve all problems in a flash of special effects.... when the soloution can be as simple as getting the right person to meet you.

I heard what you said...you said "Because expirience is misleading/unreliable, then grounding your view of reality on it is faulty."

But then, why isnt basing your views of religion on experience, equally as faulty?

You must the the hoplessly circular logic in your statements.

I'll say this one last time.

There are two (2) (you know, the number that comes after one?) ways of proving existance. One is expirence (which is faulty), the other is reason.

You are the one that said the only way to prove God's existence is with expirence. Not me. YOU!

I said that God's existence can be proved with logic and reason. I stand by that statement.

I do not have circular logic in my statements. Because one way to prove something is unreliable, I choose another way. That is not circular logic, it is plain common sense.

I try not to misinterpet what other people say. I expect the same from others. I beleive that you are being intentionally obtuse. Knock it off and actually read and try to understand for once.

1. Science explains just about everything about how the universe was created physically, except for that 10^-36 of a second just into the Big Bang - and no proven explanation of what was before the Big Bang. So I fit God in there - the kickoff, so to speak, was his doing. It is as valid and non-proven an explanation for what happened before as anything that science can provide.
Just because science cant currently understand something doesnt mean there is no natural explanation. If you were around before man could explain how hot air balloons work would you have said it was evidence for god.


2. The reason the universe is the way it is, and people the way they are, is because we all have free will. Everyone and everything in the Universe is a product of free will - science proves that even by observing something (or choosing to observe something) we change outcomes. So I think that all the misery, suffering, etc., is largely something that we do to each other and to ourselves.
Free will does not cause earthquakes, or the terrible system by which women give birth or the many problems with the immune system.

Free will does not cause earthquakes, or the terrible system by which women give birth or the many problems with the immune system.

REQUIRED: evidence that Free Will exists.
I for one don't think so.
If it does not exist.... how can it cause a thing?

I try not to misinterpet what other people say. I expect the same from others. I beleive that you are being intentionally obtuse. Knock it off and actually read and try to understand for once.

If youre gonna be an ass, it looks like were done.

Too bad, you were just beginning to make sense.

If youre gonna be an ass, it looks like were done.

Too bad, you were just beginning to make sense.


As you said: perception = reality.

Now, I put it to you:
I perceive you as a person incapable of applying proper spelling, proper reasoning, or cogent thinking.
So... does my perception make that your reality?

If youre gonna be an ass, it looks like were done.

Too bad, you were just beginning to make sense.

Sorry. I just find it frustrating that people don't actually read my posts.

Hopefully we can keep this going?

Infinite dunes, for the most part I agree with you. I do not believe the story has no significance as a metaphor. It's an interesting story monotheist or not. But my issue is that in the light of the fact that this event didnt happen what is the monotheists explanation for the world not being particularly great?I think the story gives a reason for suffering the world. That it is our struggle for independence that creates suffering. In this way it could be percieved that Genesis is the first socialist text. The solution is to give up our free will and follow the true path (an Islamic belief) and become one with God. However to most of us this seems abhorent, we can't let go of our free will. But what is free will? Isn't free will just the ability to choose a choice other than the best choice if we so wish? For instance a fire. The best choice is to not touch the fire. We may be told this, but we don't really know this until we touch the fire and thus cause ourselves suffering.

first, your point isn't stated in the bible, but it's an interpretation of the story.
Second. God didn't want Adam and Eve to leave the Garden of Eden. but they had to leave because of the first sin. *thinks back to an old Cosby Show episode where the men were pregnant.* "Did it Hurt??? Didn't you hear me SCREAMING in there... and whenever I think about where it [baby] came out from... AAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!" :D :D

Gotta admit tho, that is an interesting interpretation of the Garden of Eden story.

Keeping with your interpretation, why wouldn't Adam would be the Body and Eve the spirit, seeing that Eve was created out of Adam and that the Corrupter tempted Eve, (the Spirit) and thus causes Adam (the Body) to stray.
Interpretation of the story is all we have. You can have a literal interpretation, or a non-literal one. I favour the latter (as per the topic stated in the original post).

God set them up for the first sin. He told them not to eat the fruit, knowing all along that they would (Christian version). They did not know right from wrong, good from evil, yet were expected to obey. That is tantamount to pushing them out of the Garden.

Apart from that, it was a necessary plot device to move the story along. Wouldn't be much of a story (namely, us) if they didn't leave the Garden. ;)

Adam is spirit because God breathed spirit into him. With Eve, that was not done. I cannot take credit for the interpretation of the dichotomy of body and spirit, though; it was laid out in (I think) the 6th Century or so? I can look it up when I get home.

As you said: perception = reality.

Now, I put it to you:
I perceive you as a person incapable of applying proper spelling, proper reasoning, or cogent thinking.
So... does my perception make that your reality?
Well, I, for one, think it's a good point you are making.

The creation story, specifically the fall of man, is monotheism's explanation for why the world sucks. It tells Jews, Christians and Muslims why their awesome God didnt make the world a luxurious paradise and why we must toil in the field to survive, why childbirth is painful and why we suffer disease and natural disasters. If you do not accept the creation myth then what is your alternative explanation?
My alternative explanation is that the universe began billions of years ago from a singularity sometimes known as the "Big Bang."

The world isn't a "luxurious paradise" because it chooses to not conform to our ideas of what it "should" be like.

We must "toil" to survive because the world isn't a "luxurious paradise."

Childbirth is painful because the human brain is bigger than it was when women first started having babies and their hips have not gotten wide enough to accomodate a baby's head without pain, discounting drugs. :D

We suffer natural disasters because the universe is still a rather raw and dangerous place. We suffer disease because there are other organisms not particularly "human-friendly" who are also trying to survive.

I hope this helps. :D

Balderdash.
The evidence of man; surrounding me, might be a figment of my imagination.
[ Slaps the dog shit out of you! ] There. Was that a "figment of your imagination?" If so, I suggest you have it shot at dawn. :D

Reality is perception.
Nonsense. That's the equivalent of saying that perception = reality. Perception can only help define reality, not actually alter it.

At last, someone who can use philosphy in a debate about God!

Oh ok. A philosophy talk.

I thought this was a evolution vs creationism thing.

Carry on.....

The creation story, specifically the fall of man, is monotheism's explanation for why the world sucks. It tells Jews, Christians and Muslims why their awesome God didnt make the world a luxurious paradise and why we must toil in the field to survive, why childbirth is painful and why we suffer disease and natural disasters. If you do not accept the creation myth then what is your alternative explanation?

Um, real life?!? OK, I believe in God, but I don't believe that he 'created' us, not in the sense that Creationists believe anyway. I believe that 13 billion years ago, he flicked a switch, allowing all to come into being, then sat back and watched to see what would happen. We exist because we evolved from microorganisms which evolved from basic proteins, which evolved from basic elements deposited on a big rock orbiting a very new and pretty average star. Because I believe in evolution, I can't believe that only two people populated this earth after being booted out of Paradise on Earth. To believe in evolution, with all of it's scientific evidence, demands that we believe that man is nothing more than an animal with a large brain, higher cognitive function and the ability to shape the world around us for our own use. We suffer disasters and disease because we're not God, we're no more likely to avoid disaster than any other creature on this planet. And childbirth is painful because you're shoving something very large through a very small hole, it's a simple matter of basic maths: (volume of sprogs head)>>(area to be passed through). Reason: evoution of man's head to accomodate large brain, which is man's defense against predators (considering we have no big sharp teeth, no claws, no outer scales to shield ourselves from attack, no horns to ram attackers, no wings to fly away, no gills/fins to swim away, etc, etc).

Oh, by the way, all those animals in the Garden of Eden, they were obviously kicked out too, considering that they share the same hardships as us and all, but why are they being punished? Doesn't the Bible say that copulating with your sibling is a sin? Then where did all the people come from if Adam and Eve's children weren't allowed procreate with each other? You saying mankind is inbred? I still have to get a satisfactory answer from SOMEONE regarding these questions!!!

Replying to the OP:

I believe that we do not know exactly how the creation of the Universe and humanity occured. Our current theories, the Big Bang and Evolution, seem to be the best explanation for the data we have observed. There are still some unknowns that science is currently trying to solve.

My question: what does this have to do with my belief in God? And why does my belief in God have anything to do with the Judaic creation myth?

Nonsense. That's the equivalent of saying that perception = reality. Perception can only help define reality, not actually alter it.

Not quite. Reality=perception because each of us percieves the world in a different way. For me, the world is a fine place, I've got a job I like, a husband I love, and a bright future. For the suicidal, the world's a shitty place, nobody loves them, no one will care if they're gone, etc, etc. However, perception cannot be considered equal to reality, if it were, then we could technically conjure items out of thin air. While statistically possible, but only slightly (like 50 billion:1 odds of conjuring a turkey sandwich for my lunch, I'll die before I succeed), it's not something that can be considered in real life

Replying to the OP:

I believe that we do not know exactly how the creation of the Universe and humanity occured. Our current theories, the Big Bang and Evolution, seem to be the best explanation for the data we have observed. There are still some unknowns that science is currently trying to solve.

My question: what does this have to do with my belief in God? And why does my belief in God have anything to do with the Judaic creation myth?

Whole heartedly agree. We don't really know, we can make educated guesses as to where the Universe started and where we came from. But using an astounding amount of scientific evidence.

The creationism myth was written to explain to the uneducated where we came from, with a lack of understanding of evolution as we know it, the Bible being centuries old, and the Theory of Evolution about 150-200 years old...

I like your thinking!

Childbirth is painful because the human brain is bigger than it was when women first started having babies and their hips have not gotten wide enough to accomodate a baby's head without pain, discounting drugs. :D
Other women can speak for themselves, but my hips are plenty wide (and getting wider by the year!) ;)

more to the point that I had proof that HE exsists. and so it leaves the possiblity that he did have a hand in creation.
It may leave open the possibility of this but you said you knew it?

I believe it happened, but like Creation. not exactly or literally the way it was written.
So how do you think it happened? What exactly do you believe happened do you thik there was an adam and eve and that they did something that god tols them not to so we are all punished for thousands of years.

no, I worship a kind and loving God who had to mete out punnishments for sins.
You forgot vicious cruel punishments even to those who did nothing to exact this terrible vengeance.

who will forgive when asked for forgiveness .
Cant it just forgive people anyway? Why does it even need to forgive people? On what grounds should I subject myself to this gods idea of what is wrong? Why should I come begging for forgiveness from some being who's actions are pretty terrible at times?

then you will realize that the one question you are asking is.

"Why doesn't God treat us like Helpless children".
No the question i was asking was why isnt the world better?


The whole premise of that statement is "Why does God allow all these bad/nasty things to happen to anyone?"

the answer is simple. I don't know. .
I dont know is not an answer.

I don't pretend to know what God thinks about, I never claimed to read the mind of God.
But you can still apply things like logic and compassion to the acts of god and if you do you will see that god has not acted in regard to these.

however, if you should find HIM, perhaps you can ask..
I did ask it didnt answer.

and some people tend to want someone to hold their hand and solve all problems in a flash of special effects
Yes some people do want this and those people are called monotheists. You have just defined the reason for the prevalence of religion in our culture it is a product of want not of truth.

I would just like to think that if a loving god created a world for us he would have created one without cancer, hurricanes, disabilities, genetic disorders or mosquitoes.

Replying to the OP:

I believe that we do not know exactly how the creation of the Universe and humanity occured. Our current theories, the Big Bang and Evolution, seem to be the best explanation for the data we have observed. There are still some unknowns that science is currently trying to solve.

My question: what does this have to do with my belief in God? And why does my belief in God have anything to do with the Judaic creation myth?

What it has to do with your belief is that the judaic creation myth explains why life has been so hard (an massive understatement) for most of humanity over the last few thousand years. If god does exist and he loves you why didnt he create a better place for you to live. The only two answers I know are that god is punishing us or god doesnt exist.

I believe that 13 billion years ago, he flicked a switch, allowing all to come into being, then sat back and watched to see what would happen.
Did this god have any idea what would happen after he flicked this switch, did he have any ideas or intentions on what types of life would form and what they would be like? I think its very irresponsible to create a universe and then turn your back on it.
If this is all your god has done i don't call it a god, a supernatural, powerfull flick switching spirit it may be but a god? no! and if its sitting back watching all the nastyness in the world and doing nothing about it then the words i would use to describe it would get me in trouble.

What it has to do with your belief is that the judaic creation myth explains why life has been so hard (an massive understatement) for most of humanity over the last few thousand years. If god does exist and he loves you why didnt he create a better place for you to live. The only two answers I know are that god is punishing us or god doesnt exist.

Actually, you are assuming that God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. I am not sure that this is entirely true. If God was all three of these things and God chose to do so, then God could have created a paradise for us to live in.

I will give you several other possible answers:
1. God is not powerful enough to create a paradise.
2. God does not care about us enough to create a paradise.
3. God has created a paradise and you are living in it, but you have not opened your eyes to it. (everyone in heaven uses chopsticks that are four feet long)

Life is.
God is.
And this eternal moment, this infinite place that only exists here and now, that is the
Gift of God

What it has to do with your belief is that the judaic creation myth explains why life has been so hard (an massive understatement) for most of humanity over the last few thousand years. If god does exist and he loves you why didnt he create a better place for you to live. The only two answers I know are that god is punishing us or god doesnt exist.
It is possible to believe in god and still recognize the Judaic creation myth as a myth. Once you do that, a third possibility arises: the stories about god are just that; stories with god as a character, and the meaning (usefulness) of the story is not in its description of creation, but in its depiction of god as creator, god as father, god as authority, etc. The world is what it is despite god, not because of god, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility of god.

I will give you several other possible answers:
1. God is not powerful enough to create a paradise.
2. God does not care about us enough to create a paradise.
3. God has created a paradise and you are living in it, but you have not opened your eyes to it. (everyone in heaven uses chopsticks that are four feet long)


The third possibility is clearly not true and the first two involve god being a bit of a looser. Maybe I have a higher standard of what I would call God. I would only consider a perfect being to be God, anything less than that is merely a non-specific supernatural entity not worthy of my worship and if it were to try and force me to worship it and follow its rules then i will try to find a way to destroy it just as i would do the same for any other creature that tries to force itself upon me.

The third possibility is clearly not true and the first two involve god being a bit of a looser. Maybe I have a higher standard of what I would call God. I would only consider a perfect being to be God, anything less than that is merely a non-specific supernatural entity not worthy of my worship and if it were to try and force me to worship it and follow its rules then i will try to find a way to destroy it just as i would do the same for any other creature that tries to force itself upon me.

Why is number three obviously not true?

Why does God's possible apathy make him a less than perfect being?

Why do people in Heaven use four foot chopsticks?

Oh ok. A philosophy talk.

I thought this was a evolution vs creationism thing.

Carry on.....

Philosophy is a way of logically understanding the world. It is entirely appropriate to use it in this debate. Infact, for me at least, it will be the only way to prove your point.

The "Liar's Paradox" (My favorite)


The following statement is true.
The previous statement is false.
There's a very simple solution to that. The whole proposition is false.

There's a very simple solution to that. The whole proposition is false.

The Liar's Paradox is on old mind game. People have wasted countless hours thinking about it. Then you come along and ruin it! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Did this god have any idea what would happen after he flicked this switch, did he have any ideas or intentions on what types of life would form and what they would be like? I think its very irresponsible to create a universe and then turn your back on it.
If this is all your god has done i don't call it a god, a supernatural, powerfull flick switching spirit it may be but a god? no! and if its sitting back watching all the nastyness in the world and doing nothing about it then the words i would use to describe it would get me in trouble.

No, never said he turned his back on it, it's more like a very important experiment that requires no interaction but requires constant observation. God is just a word for a being whose powers we do not understand. If I, a 3 dimensional being were to pass my finger into a 2 dimensional Universe, I would be able to do things that those 2 dimensional beings could not understand in the scope of their understanding of the Universe, therefore, I am God of the 2 dimensional Universe, doesn't necessarily mean that I have the ability to change anything that happens in the 2 dimensional Universe, just that I can do things they can't. Now the Universe we live in was not created for us. We were created to occupy one tiny infinessimally small part of it, and outside our tiny corner, we will never exist without machinery. In fairness, I think it was very irresponsible of YOUR God to create such a limited species, with no means of protection other than to think beyond the box, no means of surviving outside our planets atmosphere, no means of surviving underwater should a flood occur. We can be eaten, killed by disease, flying debris in a storm, we can suffocate if there isn't sufficient oxygen in the atmosphere, we can die of exposure (heat and cold) even in parts of the world occupied by other creatures like snakes, scorpions, penguins and polar bears. It's very irresponsible of your God to place us on a planet that has the potential to kill us. It's very irresponsible of your God to place us on a planet which is surrounded by huge rocks, any one of which can smack into us and kill us all in an instant. It's also very irresponsible of your God to make us edible, and therefore prey to lesser animals. At least my God is watching what happens, looks like your God was taking the p*$$

Philosophy is a way of logically understanding the world. It is entirely appropriate to use it in this debate. Infact, for me at least, it will be the only way to prove your point.

Well since Science doesn't deal with the question of God, a philosophical discussion about Him serves no purpose. Especially, in my little world of Primatology. ;)

I would just like to think that if a loving god created a world for us he would have created one without cancer, hurricanes, disabilities, genetic disorders or mosquitoes.

How do we know what light is? If there were no such thing as darkness, would we know?

Where is the opportunity to do good if the world is already perfect?

Could it not be that the trials we experience in life give us an opportunity to exhibit virtue? That pain gives us a reason to be thankful for pleasure, rather than taking it for granted? That gratitude would not exist if we had no contextual experience of anything other than joy?

I believe that God has placed us all in an environment that allows us to choose to exhibit God-like qualities. We would have no need, in paradise.

Not even the beloved statement: Cogito, ergo sum, is logically correct, as Emmanuel Kant pointed out.
Descartes' philosophy still has sense. Even in a scenario where my every perception is manipulated by an evil demon, my thoughts are what make my character and my sense of self. This self may change from day to day, and may even be a mere puppet of some overwhelming malevolence, but that doesn't deny its existence as an entity.

Be this a dream, an illusion, a foregone conclusion or a deception, I still am the product of what has happened to me. My entity lives in some form, whatever that form is. Descartes goes on to try to put a definite structure to this form, but I think it's sufficient to stop there. We are what has happened to us, and what we are has reality, even within the illusion. Whether or not what happens to us is "real" isn't important. I think, therefore I am, even if what I am is a mere product of outside influence.

What it has to do with your belief is that the judaic creation myth explains why life has been so hard (an massive understatement) for most of humanity over the last few thousand years. If god does exist and he loves you why didnt he create a better place for you to live. The only two answers I know are that god is punishing us or god doesnt exist.
Simple. God is reality. All powerful (anything that is possible to do can be done in God), all knowing (everything in existence occurs within his domain), all-loving (all that exists is within himself). An entity in itself, but one that depends on living things to do its bidding. Humans are but cells in the body that is God. We are God. God is us, but is not only us - it is also the world around and beyond us. Without God, there is no reality. Without God, there is nothing. But without reality, there is no God.

You know what I think? The world is the state it is because we are becoming more like God ourselves. We too are realities of our own, with our own living things making up our composition and subordinate to our senses. This is no bad thing; in fact, it's inevitable, given God's own structure. But our response has been to try and isolate our personal realities from that outside ourselves, and it is this response that has created conflict.

Adam and Eve used natural process to separate themselves from nature. God did not eject them from paradise out of a sick test of wills. Man was merely following its nature through to its inevitable conclusion - a sense of self. Self is not in itself inherently sinful; it is misuse and overglorification of one's own self that leads to harm. To believe that our nature is inherently wrong is both disrespectful and desperate.

The Liar's Paradox is on old mind game. People have wasted countless hours thinking about it. Then you come along and ruin it! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Why not, though? It's inherently obvious.

{ [ ( A = T ) => ( B = F) ] => ( B = T ) } => ( A = F ) => ...

Is quite clearly a false proposition, since it can be effectively cancelled down to

( A = T ) <=> ( A = F )

Not quite. Reality=perception because each of us percieves the world in a different way. For me, the world is a fine place, I've got a job I like, a husband I love, and a bright future. For the suicidal, the world's a shitty place, nobody loves them, no one will care if they're gone, etc, etc. However, perception cannot be considered equal to reality, if it were, then we could technically conjure items out of thin air. While statistically possible, but only slightly (like 50 billion:1 odds of conjuring a turkey sandwich for my lunch, I'll die before I succeed), it's not something that can be considered in real life
Ah. So there is a "real world" out there and not just a construct of what we "percieve?" Perhaps we need to differintiate between "internal reality" and "external reality?"

Other women can speak for themselves, but my hips are plenty wide (and getting wider by the year!) ;)
Ohhh, no! You'll not get ME to comment on that! No way! :D

Ah. So there is a "real world" out there and not just a construct of what we "percieve?" Perhaps we need to differintiate between "internal reality" and "external reality?"

Yes. OK, one simple (ok not so simple really) way of explaining it all is to ask you to prove that the colour you percieve as green is the same as I percieve as green, ie, if I were to see the world with your eyes and brain, would it look exactly the same way as if I were looking through my own eyes and with my own brain? Maybe the colour you see as green is the same colour I would call purple, but we were both taught that this particular colour is green, so trees with what I would percieve to be purple leaves is perfectly natural and normal to you, but would look strange to me.
But, in the real world, colours are set by the laws of physics - the colour of an object is determined by the the wavelength of the light they reflect back to us. How our brains translate this information is unique to each person, therefore the world is different for each person.

Do you understand what I'm on about (I hope you do, sometimes even I don't know what I'm on about... :D )

Reality simply is.

Man simply is.

God simply is.

Pardoxes only bother you if you let them bother you.
I don't let them bother me.
(And I don't subscribe to creationism.)

Yeah, denial... There's GOT to be an explination for things. Things aren't that simple.

Yes. OK, one simple (ok not so simple really) way of explaining it all is to ask you to prove that the colour you percieve as green is the same as I percieve as green, ie, if I were to see the world with your eyes and brain, would it look exactly the same way as if I were looking through my own eyes and with my own brain? Maybe the colour you see as green is the same colour I would call purple, but we were both taught that this particular colour is green, so trees with what I would percieve to be purple leaves is perfectly natural and normal to you, but would look strange to me.
But, in the real world, colours are set by the laws of physics - the colour of an object is determined by the the wavelength of the light they reflect back to us. How our brains translate this information is unique to each person, therefore the world is different for each person.

Do you understand what I'm on about (I hope you do, sometimes even I don't know what I'm on about... :D )

Hey I used to think that exact same thing about percieving the colors differently, but then I realized that colors have some sort of hue and it is all related to science and stuff, like, the shades of colors are the way they are for certain reasons - I can't really explain it all by memory... I know you are just using that color thing as an example... But still, it's not a exactly correct one. Although maybe you know that, I dunno.

Hey I used to think that exact same thing about percieving the colors differently, but then I realized that colors have some sort of hue and it is all related to science and stuff, like, the shades of colors are the way they are for certain reasons - I can't really explain it all by memory... I know you are just using that color thing as an example... But still, it's not a exactly correct one. Although maybe you know that, I dunno.

Technically you're right. Colours are the result of how light is reflected from the object's surface. If an object is, say, green, then it will absorb the red and blue from natural light and reflect the green. If an object is magenta, it will only absorb green, and reflect back the red and blue, you get the idea. Well, now I know that colours are fixed by the laws of physics, but how do I know that my retina is excited by wavelengths of a certain light in the same way that YOUR retina is excited by the same wavelength. And even if it was, how do I know that your brains reacts in the same way to the same electrical impulse that this wavelength generates in the optic nerve in the same way that mine does.

It's a very philosophical and rhetorical question...something to think about

Yeah, denial... There's GOT to be an explination for things. Things aren't that simple.
The universe happened. Something caused it. It could have been a previous universe, it could have been some amount of energy in the future being propelled back in time, it could have been an offshoot of some external reality. We don't know. There are many explanations.

What we do know is that we are. Whatever explanations we give are merely supposed to justify this state of being. In some sense, the most effective philosophy is the one that BogMarsh takes; without worry for how things come to be, we can focus on more important matters. While it doesn't satisfy me fully, I can see its subtle wisdom.

If you want an explanation, look for it and make it yours. In the end of the day, all we need is enough to press us on in our lives and make the most of what time we have.

The creation story, specifically the fall of man, is monotheism's explanation for why the world sucks. It tells Jews, Christians and Muslims why their awesome God didnt make the world a luxurious paradise and why we must toil in the field to survive, why childbirth is painful and why we suffer disease and natural disasters. If you do not accept the creation myth then what is your alternative explanation?

This idea is from http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0034.html for Catholic thought. I hope this helps a little about the creation story problem.

Charles Darwin himself discarded a mild Protestant faith when he concluded that the author of Genesis was a bad geologist. To his mind, the biblical six days of creation and Lyell’s Principles of Geology could not both be true.
The discomfort with Genesis, moreover, has not been restricted to the educated classes. According to the famous French worker-priest Abbe Michonneau, the apparent conflict between science and the six-day creation account promoted atheism among the poor far more effectively than any social injustice. Darwinian evolution is a major ingredient of that “science.” So is the “Big Bang” model of the universe, which plausibly asserts that the cosmos is billions, and not thousands, of years old.
The confusion over this issue, which Pope John Paul II addressed in 1996 in his highly publicized letter about evolution, boils down to the question of how to read the biblical creation account. In his letter, John Paul simply reiterated what the Magisterium has argued tirelessly since Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus (1893): The author of Genesis did not intend to provide a scientific explanation of how God created the world. Unfortunately there are still biblical fundamentalists, Catholic and Protestant, who do not embrace this point.
When Christ said that the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds — and it is about the size of a speck of dust — He was not laying down a principle of botany. In fact, botanists tell us there are smaller seeds. Our Lord was simply talking to the men of His time in their own language, and with reference to their own experience. Similarly, the Hebrew word for “day” used in Genesis (“yom”) can mean a 24-hour day, or a longer period. Hence the warning of Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943), that the true sense of a biblical passage is not always obvious. The sacred authors wrote in the idioms of their time and place.
As Catholics, we must believe that every word of Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, a claim the Church will not make even for her infallible pronouncements. However, we must not imagine the biblical authors as going into a trance and taking automatic dictation in a “pure” language untouched by historical contingency. Rather, God made full use of the writers’ habits of mind and expression. It’s the old mystery of grace and free will.
A modern reader of Genesis must bear in mind the principles of biblical exegesis laid down by St. Augustine in his great work De Genesi Ad Litteram (On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis). Augustine taught that whenever reason established with certainty a fact about the physical world, seemingly contrary statements in the Bible must be interpreted accordingly. He opposed the idea of a “Christian account” of natural phenomena in opposition to what could be known by science. He viewed such accounts as “most deplorable and harmful, and to be avoided at any cost,” because on hearing them the non-believer “could hardly hold his laughter on seeing, as the saying goes, the error rise sky-high.”
As early as 410 A.D., then, the greatest of the Western Church Fathers was telling us that the Book of Genesis is not an astrophysics or geology textbook. Augustine himself was a kind of evolutionist, speculating that God’s creation of the cosmos was an instantaneous act whose effects unfolded over a long period. God had planted “rational seeds” in nature which eventually developed into the diversity of plants and animals we see today. St. Thomas Aquinas cites this view of Augustine’s more than once in the course of the Summa Theologiae. St. Thomas, author Etienne Gilson writes,
was well aware that the Book of Genesis was not a treatise on cosmography for the use of scholars. It was a statement of the truth intended for the simple people whom Moses was addressing. Thus it is sometimes possible to interpret it in a variety of ways. So it was that when we speak of the six days of creation, we can understand by it either six successive days, as do Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom and Gregory, and is suggested by the letter of the text . . . Or we can with Augustine take it to refer to the simultaneous creation of all beings with days symbolizing the various orders of beings. This second interpretation is at first sight less literal, but is, rationally speaking, more satisfying. It is the one that St. Thomas adopts, although he does not exclude the other which, as he says, can also be held.
In this century, Cardinal Bea, who helped Pius XII draft Divino Afflante Spiritu, wrote that Genesis does not deal with the “true constitution of visible things.” It is meant to convey truths outside the scientific order.
While they do not teach science, the early chapters of Genesis are history and not myth. But they are not history as it would be written by a modern historian. (It is not as though there was a camcorder in the Garden of Eden.) You might say that they are history written in mythic language — a poetic compression of the truth, as it were. We are obliged to believe the fundamental truths expressed by the sacred author — for example, that our first parents, tempted by the devil, committed a primal act of disobedience whose effects we still suffer (cf. Catechism, no. 390). But the Catholic doctrine of original sin is entirely outside the realm of physical science. It’s worth keeping in mind, however, Newman’s remark that the more he contemplated humanity, the clearer it became to him that the race was “implicated in some terrible aboriginal calamity.” Biblical fundamentalism — and its corollary, creation science — is a distinctly Protestant phenomenon. Although it has roots in the commentaries on Genesis written by Luther and Calvin, its real beginning was in early 20th century America. Biblical literalism was a defense against the onslaught of rationalist criticism launched by German scholars who were intent on undermining Christian belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. Certain Protestant denominations that were already suspicious of science took refuge in a semantic literalism that sheltered the Bible from the invasive procedures of agnostic scholarship. The intellectual simplicity and doctrinal clarity of this position make it attractive to some Catholics today. This appeal is understandable. They are seeking refuge from the attacks of heterodox theologians who seem as eager as their 19th century forebears to deconstruct the faith. The temptation to biblical literalism should be avoided, however. The Bible was never meant to be read apart from the teaching authority established by Christ. Even many Catholics are not aware of the “Catholic” origins of the Bible. It was not until the end of the fourth century that the twenty-seven books which comprise the New Testament were agreed upon by two Church councils, subject to final approval by the pope. And it was the Church that insisted, against the protests of heretics, that the Old Testament be included in the Christian canon. The Bible was never meant to stand alone as a separate authority. It is the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, that preserves the deposit of the faith, of which Scripture is an integral part. St. Augustine, as usual, got it exactly right: “But for the authority of the Catholic Church, I would not believe the Gospel.”
Since Leo XIII, the Magisterium has progressively discouraged the literalistic reading of Genesis favored by Protestants. Can a Catholic nonetheless read Genesis as a scientific treatise? Yes, if he wants to — but he may find himself in the dilemma of trying to force scientific data into a biblical template which was never meant to receive it. And he will be severely handicapped in doing apologetics in a post-Christian world. He will, in fact, be the reverse of apostolic if he tries to explain to anyone the doctrine of creation in the terms of ancient Hebrew cosmology.
The test of a first-rate intellect, it has been said, is the ability to hold two seemingly opposed ideas and retain the ability to function. A brilliant 20th century Catholic apologist, Frank J. Sheed, wrote of the creation account in his masterpiece, Theology and Sanity. His words are an invitation to Catholics tempted by biblical literalism to use their reason and not engage in overly simplistic readings of Scripture. The author of Genesis, Sheed writes,
tells us of the fact but not the process: there was an assembly of elements of the material universe, but was it instantaneous or spread over a considerable space and time? Was it complete in one act, or by stages? Were those elements, for instance, formed into an animal body which as one generation followed another gradually evolved — not, of course, by the ordinary laws of matter but under the special guidance of God — to a point where it was capable of union with a spiritual soul, which God created and infused into it? The statement in Genesis does not seem actually to exclude this, but it certainly does not say it. Nor has the Church formally said that it is not so.
Catholics in reality have no cause to be timid about Scripture or science. They simply need to distinguish between two complementary but distinct orders of knowledge — theological and scientific — and allow each its due competence. They should be extremely cautious about mixing the two. The Magisterium learned this the hard way in the Galileo affair. A faithful Catholic should be calmly anchored in the proposition that truth is indivisible, and the works of God cannot contradict what He has chosen to reveal through Scripture and Tradition.

Hope this helps.

The universe happened. Something caused it. It could have been a previous universe, it could have been some amount of energy in the future being propelled back in time, it could have been an offshoot of some external reality. We don't know. There are many explanations.

What we do know is that we are. Whatever explanations we give are merely supposed to justify this state of being. In some sense, the most effective philosophy is the one that BogMarsh takes; without worry for how things come to be, we can focus on more important matters. While it doesn't satisfy me fully, I can see its subtle wisdom.

If you want an explanation, look for it and make it yours. In the end of the day, all we need is enough to press us on in our lives and make the most of what time we have.


Um, to throw in my two cents worth, matter or energy can't travel backwards in time, only forwards, and the speed at which an object travels forwards in time is directly related to it's spatial velosity. The Universe is flat, unfortunately for all you sci fi fans out there, it means no funny stuff as far as cosmology is concerned once man has the ability to travel beyond the solar system in reasonable time periods...