Exactly. That is what scientists do. We develop our brain into the best thinking machine we can be. We read, study, analyze, compare, trade-off every second of every day. We go to sleep thinking and wake up thinking about what we thought about while sleeping. Our brain is this revved up sports car ready to out think, out analyze our life at every moment.
Now here is the best part. If we can shut off our thinking brain for a while and just experience living. No thinking. Just being alive. No thinking. Just being aware. If you can do this for fifteen seconds, great. A minute wonderful. An hour thatās fantastic. Donāt worry, your thinking brain doesnāt go away. It is there when you need it, fast as ever and much clearer. Really new ideas and solutions seem to fly in at this point.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I can get there. Thatās not a problem. But to be an atheist for a day, Iād have to stay there. And I canāt do that. Not that I canāt physically do it. Itās that I have to function in my life and canāt take a day to just ābeā. As soon as I have to go back to work, Iām a Christian again.
What Iām trying to get at are the blind spots that never seem to get sussed out to such an intense degree. Everything else is analyzed and measured and figured out. But those blind spots, meh, thatās just a thing.
Thatās like finding a book where the ending was never written and thereās just blank pages. Weāre writing the ending to that book without knowing much of anything about the story leading up to it. I mean, itās cool that you get to do your own thing, but are you really servicing the entirety of the story being told? Or did you maybe just ruin something?
Quick addition: I appreciate it, Patrick. I have to run and cook dinner. So itāll be a bit before I can respond further, but will definitely be interested in reading your thoughts.
No you donāt. Nobody is forcing you to stay there. But if you are uncomfortable with a day, how about being an atheist for an hour? You can do that right. Just an hour. How about between 10 am and 11 am tomorrow?
If Iām not analyzing, not thinking, then Iām nothing. I am in that moment holding no views or beliefs.
God isnāt some thing thatās attached here and there. Itās interwoven into everything. Itās the view that makes sense out of all the blindspots in the no-god scenario. Connects everything and makes it all make sense.
Thatās not true. You are the same human being with the same hopes and dreams as anyone else.
Donāt mistaken the thinking machine inside your head with YOU. You are much more than a thinking machine. You are a whole person. Shut the thinking machine off for a while and enjoy what you experience doing nothing. Just sit and look out the window for five minutes without thinking. What do you see?
Am I? Itās the ideals and the beliefs I hold that cause the way I respond and behave. Thatās who I am. Itās a part of me that Iām āturning offā. Without that Iām not wholly me. The thinking machine inside my head IS me. Part of me.
Please explain what you mean when you say this. I agree, but obviously not for the same reasons.
And your thoughts are you also. Can you control your thoughts? Can you minimize them? Can you steer them positively? Or just dismiss them?
Most thoughts are useless, inaccurate, negative.
Your brain can be used any way that youād like. You can put your brain in an endless loop of negative destruct thoughts. Or you can learn to break the loop and shut the thinking off. To me the thinking brain evolved with anxiety and fearfulness. Always seeing the lion in the grass when none is there. Better safe than sorry.
But in the modern world, too much thinking leads to anxiety disorders. Too much to think about, too many optimization problems, not enough data, not enough certainty. The outcome is mental illness.
See, thatās the problem. These are not frivolous thoughts that need controlling. These are core observations that form the basis of the worldview that form my reality. I canāt just gloss over them or toss them aside. Like the way I explained before. That jolt. Itās an immediate realization. Itās not useless, or inaccurate, or negative. Itās a logical contradiction. And I canāt just ignore that or set it to the side.
What do you see that would cause you to expect to see the emergence of the elements of us Iāve asked about?
It is not a problem unless you call it a problem. Most of your thoughts are useless thoughts and most are negative thoughts. Our brain evolved to be fearful, on guard, ready for flight or fight. Your observations do form your worldview but your worldview is not reality. It is an illusion of reality. There is only one reality - the present reality. Reality is the present state of every particle in the universe.
Yes you can. You are not your thoughts. You are not your worldview. You are not your opinions. All these can and will change. The past is gone. As we say in New Jersey - fuhgeddaboudit. Live for right now. Stop thinking and live. I am sure that you will see the world differently - and better, more alive, more wondrous, and more enjoyable. And sure, when a situation comes up requiring thinking and analyzing, your brain will be ready for action. All your analytical training will be there ready to do unbiased analysis on the spot.
If the guy that lived down the street from you had lived there since your great great great great grandfather lived there and still looked exactly the same, would he be mortal to you?
I assume in this statement youāre referring to this ā¦
That was in response to my statement āā¦but it does say āGodās spiritā would not ācontendā. This to me means āGodās spiritā was something given to Adam when God breathed life into him.ā
Pure speculation on my part, admittedly. Thatās just how I read it. Iāll throw out how I see it so that if anyone can point out how that doesnāt work with the text or whatever, I can be corrected. Thatās what Iām here for. To test my ideas with people who know what theyāre talking about.
As far as I can tell no one here can agree on what āimage of Godā is. And the text is pretty ambigous about it. The one thing I can pick out of the above points thatās factually true is your statement that if it was genetic it would be gone by now. That I agree with. The rest of it seems to be speculation based on your particular take of Godās image.
Thereās an assumption here that Godās image is referring to something spiritual. The soul. But thereās nothing to confirm or refute that view in the text that I have found.
To me the words āimageā and ālikenessā are refering to physical appearance.
Yes. Absolutely. I know of no scriptural or scientific evidence suggesting that any human body is anything but mortal, regardless of how long it may actually last until its death.
Putting aside for the moment the risks of such hypotheticals, why are you appearing to assume (?) that advanced age (even a young looking advanced age, for example) means that something is not mortal (i.e., immortal?) If I am misunderstanding you, by all means correct me.
Scientists have found various trees and fungi which have lived far longer than people used to think was at all possible. Does that mean that those trees and fungi are considered immortal/not-mortal? No.
In a related topic, there was a thread some months (?) back where we discussed whether the ages of the patriarchs beyond 900 years were meant to be actual āliteralā ages or served some other literary purpose. Whatever a readerās personal views on that subject, everyone should be aware of the variety of positions held by born-again evangelical scholars who affirm the infallibility of the Bible.
[Jeremy, I donāt think we have interacted before, so I also want to say: Welcome to Peaceful Science! If we have interacted before and Iāve forgotten, please accept my apologies. I donāt have the memory I once did.]
Hi Allen. I have interacted with you before, it seems, but am in no way offended if you donāt recall. I appreciate your input and thank you for the welcome.
We seem to be getting a little too hung up on my word choice (not the first time this has happened). Iām using the word āmortalā in reference to the way itās used in Gen6 (in this particular translation at least)ā¦
Genesis 6:3 - Then the Lord said, āMy Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.ā
Yes, in the minds of most the word immortal means to never die. This is not what I mean and apologize for using unclear wording.
From my perspective I am far beyond questioning whether or not the ages of the patriarchs are literal. From the evidence I am certain of that being the case. Thereās no longer question. Once all is lined up along side each other:
1 the biblical text
2 the archaeological/climatological history of the specified region/time
3 the mythological texts written by the cultures that populated that region/time
ā¦ it all illuminates a very clear picture.
There were beings in our ancient past (about 5000-3000BC) who were not products of evolution like all other life on Earth, but existed apart from it. They were described by the Sumerians to be aliens who came from another planet. They were later thought of to be their gods.
No, we do not have any physical evidence of these beings themselves. There were a pretty small number of them, so finding physical evidence of them at this point would be a needle in a very large haystack. But by all other indications, there seems to be a very distinct impact of a particular shape and size in the evidence that this hypothesis fits into very neatly.
By this I mean the scientifically gathered information about the region/time. Using the very specific timeline given in Genesis through the geneologies listed, you an construct that specific series of years and events into a framework/guide. Itās very specific about its geographic location. So itās just a matter of finding a period in history where these events happened along that time line. That period is between about 5500 and 3500BC in Mesopotamia.
I have a series of articles Iāve written on the topic if you follow the link in my header that will explain this all in more detail if you like, but thatās the jist of it.