Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Jim And Penny Caldwell's Archaeological Findings:


BlackCat

Recommended Posts

Hello again BC!  smile.png

 

(Can I call you that?)

 

Bornagainatheist, I'd just like to say I really appreciate your comments in message # 43.   Thank you.  biggrin.png  

I'm pleased to help, as others were pleased to help me - when I needed it.

 

This process of deconversion (if that is what is happening to me??) is proving more painful than liberating, and there is that temptation to avoid things that hurt, and go back to 'faith based' reasonings, which offer hope and not dispair. 

 

Despair isn't necessarily the default position, when it comes to having doubts about Christianity, BC.  It's touted as the one and only destination for those losing their Christian faith - mostly by aggressively evangelizing Christians.  But, (surprise,surprise!) that's not the whole story and (in my experience) said evangelists are quite careful not to tell the whole story - only those parts of it that present Christianity in the best possible light.

For instance, I'm an atheist and quite comfortable with that.  But being an atheist doesn't automatically fill me with soul-crushing despair.  Nor is atheism the only option open to you.  The folks in this forum aren't all atheists either.  There are pantheists, deists, agnostics, pagans, buddhists and many other philosophical and/or spiritual paths being followed by my friends here.  Even though I deconverted from evangelical Christianity...

 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Free_Church_of_America  

 

...almost a decade ago and have been a member here for over three years, I'm still learning a great deal about the many paths other people have followed. 

 

Providing I keep an open mind and keep the willingness to respect and tolerate others as equals in my heart, then I can learn and grow and thrive in the nurturing enviroment of this forum.  I mean, who am I to tell anyone else that their chosen way of life is wrong or mistaken or evil?  Perhaps thinking and telling others that they're wrong, mistaken and evil that is wrong, mistaken and evil - which then makes me the one who is wrong, mistaken and evil?

 

(Hmmm... not very eloquently written, but I think it gets the point across.)

 

Anyway BC, perhaps you might be interested in checking this out?  Who knows?  You might surprise yourself?

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/54782-what-kind-of-pantheist-are-you/

I offer this to back up my earlier point.  Specifically, that atheism and despair are not the only and final destinations for anyone doubting or leaving Christianity. Your life is your own, your choices are your own and your path is your own.

 

About 5 years ago, when I felt quite strong in my faith, I thought it would be interesting to go on an atheist forum to discuss with atheists, why they didn't believe in God (yes, if I'm honest, I'm sure I hoped to persuade one at least, that there was a God).   The nastiness, sarcasm, distain and intellectual pride that was poured on me almost immediately, served to reinforce my beliefs- how could such horrible people be right?  Your approach (and many others here) is to kindly and patiently whittle away at points, and I can't stress enough how vitally important it is, to be patient and kind, as the subjects we are discussing and deconstructing (possibly) in the process, are accompanyied by a million emotions  and hopes that have built up around these 'stories' from, in my case, a very young age. 

 

 

For me to consider that Jesus was a deluded man is like being told that my parents aren't really my parents- they lied to me all my life, and my real parents abandoned me- that's how painful this process is to me, and I know that you understand this.

Yes BC, I do understand.

 

But please note that I'm only offering this, 'delusional holy man concept' as a potential explanation.  I see a pattern and possibly the pattern fits - to a certain degree.  There's just too much confusion and ambiguity in the Bible for one over-arching explanation to neatly cover everything. 

 

Btw, I'm truly sorry if writing about it has caused you any pain.  That was not my intention.  (You see?  I still err and have much to learn. )

 

I do see what you're 'driving at'.  wink.png   I'd forgotten about the talking serpent, 'fall', flood etc, and had homed in on the more down to earth wanderings of ancient Israelites through a region not usually considered for the wandering (maybe that's where the missing skeletons are??), and having considered the 'evidence' provided by the Caldwells, the exodus seemed plausible as a historical event.  I do accept though, that there is a big problem with the zero mention of these events in the Egyptian accounts (thanks to those guys who pointed this out).  The rest of the Bible crumbles, if the Exodus is undermined.  I'm still hoping Genesis can be rescued some how:

 

e.g maybe much of it is symbolic, the fall is a crude way of understanding death (sin is 'sickness' and so we need 'healing' which is usually called 'saving' (even scientists have shown that cells have a clock that kicks in and leads to the cell dying- if you could keep the clock going, then maybe you could keep the cell from dying??)

Maybe the flood was local and exaggerated. 

 

I think you can see how my reasoning is taking me. cool.png  

 

I'm going to email Penny in the New Year, regarding the points made in an article that Joshpantera brought to my attention.  I've come this far on the Caldwell's journey, and so I want to get to the truth of what their findings actually mean.  Having watched their story on the link in the OP, and read their book, I don't believe they are 'amateur hucksters'.  I believe they are sincere in their beliefs and endeavours, and yes, they may be badly mistaken.  There's no doubting they have discovered important archaelogical objects, and the ones that are of interest to me, are the stone carvings of the minorah, which Penny discusses in the film at 1.25 to 1.28 so only 3 minutes to watch.  If these carvings can be proved to be as old as the Caldwells's claim, then this surely 'prove' that ancient Israelites did wander in a desert region thousands of years ago and so the Exodus account is then somewhat plausible, although this doesn't prove their God is real etc. but it's interesting nevertheless.  happy.png

 

.

Curiously enough BC, I can also appreciate that our reality is 'broken-and-winding-down', but I've come to this from a scientific perspective.  Would you like me to elaborate?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, that's the problem with people like the Caldwells. They know how to present their findings in a way that will fool those who don't have any archaeological training. They don't have any themselves, but they DO know how to sell to the ignorant. That they even ask for donations on their site should clue you in. They're not asking for actual archaeologists to look at their work, are they? They're asking for Fox News types to send them money to PROVE Christianity is REALSIES. If they really had something backing up these claims, the real archaeologists would be all over it. They're not. Nobody even gives them the time of day. Nobody will fund their "important work." As interesting as their findings may seem, they are not submitting them to the people who can best back them up and best validate their claims. Before someone gets all excited about stuff like this, it's worth seeking out the opinions of those who actually *do* have training and *do* have the expertise needed to really evaluate their findings. Until then they're just a pair of toddlers flailing around in a museum making up stories about dinosaur skeletons.

 

A stone carving of a menorah? Why don't you wonder why they can't seem to find the thousands of cookfires and tent-pole posts that all these Jews would leave as they wandered a very small desert for 40 years? Where are the bones, where are the signs of their passing? Funny they don't seem to mention all the evidence directly contradicting the Exodus--the lack of evidence for these plagues, for the Egyptians keeping Hebrews as slaves to begin with, for there being millions of people and animals wandering at all... They fling up this carved menorah, which doesn't appear to have been evaluated by actual real professionals, as if it's their lucky black feather. And you've seized on it.

 

BC, you're giving these guys wayyyy too much credit. I know you really want this to be even a teeny bit true, but it isn't. The OT is nothing more than what one might expect primitive goat-herders to know; there's no exalted wisdom in it. It's not even a reliable historical record. Like with the prophecies of Nostradamus, our remarkable human ability to see patterns in anything will sometimes see things in written records that aren't there. Are people like the Caldwells sincere? Yes, or at least they can fake it. But are they actually competent to do what they're doing? Oh hell no. Not at all. Part of deconversion is slipping off blinders to see stuff as it really is, not as you desperately wish it could be. The Caldwells are amateurs, because they are untrained and undisciplined. They are hucksters, because they are foisting this pseudo-archaeology off on the ignorant and weak-minded and trying to profit by it. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings: THEY ARE AMATEUR HUCKSTERS.

 

You can be sincere and still be wrong, as you've noted, BC. You speak of faith, you speak of wanting to "rescue" Genesis. Why? You labor under all sorts of false dilemmas--one I've mentioned, but there are others, like the idea that there's either "atheism" or "Christianity." Why do you allow evangelicals to dictate the terms of your life that way? Why is it better to live in false hope and lies instead of making your own path and living in truth? Why must you try so hard, pour so much of your own precious remaining time, into the lifeless husk of Christianity when there are so many other paths you could go down that respect your intellect and don't ask you to live a lie? Clearly it's important to you that these pseudo-archaeologists have *something* right... I just can't figure out why. If you really want to know about archaeology of the region, why don't you start with actual archaeologists, and stay away from the crazy pseudos?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me to consider that Jesus was a deluded man is like being told that my parents aren't really my parents- they lied to me all my life, and my real parents abandoned me- that's how painful this process is to me, and I know that you understand this.

I do apologise for the insensitivity of the post, it was very misguided.

 

The notion of the deluded Jesus came from The Alpha Course, as his argument began with the statement that if the Bible was true that Jesus was either a manipulator, insane or truly the Son of the living God. He made a compelling case, and coming from a background of law built up a large set of constructs in which to base his argument. Then towards the end, after hacking away as to why Jesus was the Son of God he was able to eliminate the negatives, so in a sense it stuck with me.

 

While I was practicing and believing Christianity I watched a lot of documentaries, in fact near enough every documentary on these subjects:

  1. The Bible (and some of the documentaries on Islam)
  2. Ancient Egypt, Aztecs and Mayans
  3. (more recently) Ancient Aliens
  4. Science, such as evolution and the Universe

The documentaries on the Bible ranged from examining possible sites for where Sodom and Gomorrah to scientific reasons for the events of Genesis, suggesting that each of the plagues could have been inspired by events triggered from chain reaction. The historic event in this case was an explosion of a nearby volcano, which would have darkened the sky several centuries before the Genesis account, that could potentially cause a famine. Like yourself I reached a position of considering the Bible was written to be understood symbolically, skimming over books on the Kabbalah only helped support this idea. So for a long time I treated the Bible as a book of divinely inspired wisdom. Books like Job are good examples of this. In fact I read the Bible meticulously, and uttered every name in Numbers hoping that from it I may gain a hidden wisdom as I am aware of the potential specific memories can have in making future constructs more likely (another topic in itself).

 

Then I would watch Dr Grady McMurty make lots of claims about Creation, knowing everything that I knew and having all the tools of investigation I had developed from my academic life, I began to grow suspicious of the integrity of all the claims I heard. I never liked being told how to interpret something, and so I took every interpretation for face value, gaining my own interpretation of it. Even mentions of the "red" sea were suspicious because it was actually written as "sea of reeds". The main point here being that it is very important to study the meaning as it was meant to be understood, which requires the effort of research and self study. Then you realise how far off the mark most preachers are on the scriptures, and causes you to question what you hear by backing it up with the real scripture interpretation (as Proverbs instructs, test all things).

 

Regarding the portion of 1:25-:1:28, I would ask what it means in archaeological isolation (i.e. only considering accepted archaeology rather than Biblical explanations)? Genetically we know the Jews are Canaanites, historically we know that Canaanites were the underclass of their society before that society crumbled, after which Judaism surfaced. What we are really asking here is then, does the Bible fill the gaps of archaeological evidence? Or rather, can the Bible substitute the absence of archaeological evidence? And to that you should ask how much the Bible corresponds to existing archaeology?

 

One thing you will notice in issues of uncertain truth is that you can pretty much derive any conclusion from artefacts of which little is known. Though with little peer review in order to accept the claims made requires much greater investigation. Leaps of faith in this case are evasions of effort. The meaning derived is much less important than the path taken to reach the conclusion. I would be weary of any person who not only makes the leap for you but requests that you make the same leap of faith with them. And of course you also have to take into account all of the conflicting data (when you come across it).

 

So then what would your next line of investigation be, where do you stand, and how do you feel about your position?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, thanks for the replies.  I've just had a quick read and will reply to them properly in the New Year. 

 

I know you guys are not intentionally being hurtful in the points you are making.  They are valid points that need to be investigated if I  (and others like me) am to continue on my quest for truth. biggrin.png  

 

Joshpantera- I watched the film you linked to.  It was very interesting and well filmed.   A good many of the criticisms raised are a problem for the traditional site of Mt Sinai and the desert wanderings, which don't apply if we're considering the Saudi Arabian area that the Caldwell's propose.  I'm going to email Penny with the list of problems that the article you linked to in an earlier post, raises.  It may well be, that some of these objections relate to Wyatt's proposals which are not the same as the Caldwell's in all areas.  Not sure.  I've emailed various 'experts' to gain opinions on the petroglyphs that seem to contain Thamudic symbols (which if Thamudic, could date these carvings to 1500 BC or thereabouts.)  I've cast my net out quite a bit, and should reel some fish in, by the New Year hopefully.  wink.png

 

Bornagainatheist- I don't mind 'BC' at all.    And yes, I would love you to elaborate.  cool.png

 

Akheia -   The Caldwell's conclusions of their findings may well be very wrong or completely wrong but I do not agree with you that they are hucksters.

 

Falemon- No need to apologise.  I'm probably way too sensitive.  blink.png

 

Fuller replies in the new year guys.  Bye for now.  Got a party to go to in a few hours.  Happy New Year to you all............biggrin.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Bornagainatheist- I don't mind 'BC' at all.    And yes, I would love you to elaborate.  cool.png

 

 

Ok then.  C u in 2013!  Byeee!  LeslieWave.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BC, oh hon, I'm not attacking you at all. I know where you're coming from here and why this is important to you. I'm saying be skeptical. Don't just accept what people say about themselves. That's how you got locked into religion in the first place. Look deeper.

 

Here's why I think people like the Caldwells are in this for money, not for adding to humanity's understanding of history. They've had all the opportunity that any other Westerner has to educate themselves in actual archaeology from an accredited university. More than, since they're making enough money to sell their BS to people who don't know any better. These people are far from poor. Instead of going on these "digs" they're doing, why don't they go to school and actually learn to do it right rather than charge off half-pumped like this? Why do they make these ignorant assumptions and form these half-baked theories, when they could be busy learning to do all this stuff the right way from actual people who make their livings in these fields at universities whose focus is academic honesty and integrity? Why are they asking for money from fundies instead of getting grants from academic bodies? Have you ever heard of a legitimate scientist doing that? I sure haven't, and I'm a college graduate who studies history in her off-time (just spent my morning tracking down Renaissance dog breeds and boy are my arms tired). So why is it necessary for these guys to make money appeals like this? In short, why does nobody reputable support them?

 

Why is it so important to you to believe that the Caldwells are innocents abroad when the evidence suggests something far from innocent going on here? I've got to say, they sound like the David Bartons of archaeology the more I read about them. And I think David Barton's terribly sincere, but I also think he's a huckster. He's in it for the money, and I think the Caldwells are too. I agree that they do sound very sincere, but if they were really honest, they'd be scooting their rear ends into school to learn to do archaeology right, instead of pounding off to the Middle East on fundies' donations to try to prove the Old Testament is REALSIES GUIZE. If they found evidence that did not support their top-down theory, do you imagine they'd reveal it and disappoint all those fundies? Or do they mysteriously only find things that they think supports their ideas? "Ooh, oops, guys, sorry, we just have to say we haven't found a single dingle thing to support there being an Exodus. Send more money!" Do you see that happening? Because I sure don't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

BC - "A good many of the criticisms raised are a problem for the traditional site of Mt Sinai and the desert wanderings, which don't apply if we're considering the Saudi Arabian area that the Caldwell's propose."

 

 Don't apply?

 

Why not?

 

We have to start with point A and proceed to point B.

 

Egypt (no evidence of Israelite slaves) > the geography between Egypt and Mt. Sinai or the Saudi Arabian area of the Caldwell's proposal > and the final destination of the conquest of Canaan.

 

The point is that there are 2 possible routes and neither of them present any evidence of a multitude traveling leaving behind evidence of their travels. One is directly to Canaan and the other is across the Red Sea to Saudi Arabia.

 

The Caldwell's have to start with hard evidence for the Israelites as slaves in Egypt and follow the journey out of Egypt and to the proposed site in Saudi Arabia. It doesn't make very much sense to lack evidence in Egypt, all along whatever path they took from Egypt to the mountain of choice, and a total strike out when the cities of the supposed conquest of Canaan were dated to diverse time periods by modern archaeologists. The big picture points to no literal Exodus.

 

I'd assume that the menorah image is either misinterpreted or dates to a much later period, seeing as how the OT and all of it's stories involving things like the menorah belong to a much a later time period. But I'll have to look closer and see if any one has already addressed that point head on. 

 

I saw the bit about the footprint which is very ridiculous in many ways because the Israelites were not literate at the time, no written language at the supposed time of the Exodus. Israel appears to have grown up out of the local Canaanite population after the final collapse of the city-state system. That's another reason that taking the ten commandments literally is equally invalid. That was covered in another program I saw about the literacy of the time period in question. As a matter of fact there is no evidence for the existence of the Pentateuch any earlier than the Greek Septuagint after 300 BCE, which, is when all of these Bible stories in Genesis and Exodus finally appear into the historical and literary record. 

 

So in this case, if the Caldwell's are even correct about the foot print images relating to later Hebrew characters, they would most certainly belong to a much later historical period. But I'm very skeptical that the images are in fact what the Caldwell's are claiming. It's like the neolithic rock art problem and the 12 pillars. These images probably belong to earlier or later periods and that's why they're found all along the Saudi Arabian coast line. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EXACTAMUNDO, JP.

 

Besides, it takes time to carve stuff in stone, and if the carving occurred during the Exodus one would expect there to be found, along with the menorah, a shit-ton of stuff from all these hundreds of thousands of people and millions of animals milling around while some Jewish artist was busy carving this thing out. I don't believe for a second that the Caldwells' assertion is made with integrity; one has to really squint to even half-see it the way they see it. Okay, so they found a menorah. Very nice, and one certainly can't discount that it's interesting. It'll be even more interesting to see what real archaeologists make of this find, and how they fit it into the body of already-established evidence regarding the life of the region in that period. But on its own? It sure doesn't prove an Exodus, and it doesn't make the Caldwells real archaeologists any more than me finding an arrowhead in my backyard makes me one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Back Cat

 

Pretty much agree with most of what has been shared. I did a synopsis on the whole exodus debacle and one of the things that makes it totally implausible is the water requirements. A human requires 2l of water a day under ideal conditions to survive. I have posted this elsewhere here but the requirement for 6M odd folk would have been a modern convoy of 20kl or 20 ton trucks of water nose to tail, a convoy of 8.3km long (that only the human water requirements for one day)

 

The other key aspect was their feast of unleavened bread eaten approx 230 miles from the point of departure and on the same night or the very next day. Remember they were also hauling all the booty required for the calf of Aaron later in the tale when Moses allegedly get the laws at mount Sinai.

 

The initial journey by foot with beasts of burden, taking a 20 mile per day as a reasonable progress on foot, the feast of unleavened bread would have been 10 days later by which time their dough would have been dried up or rotten.

 

Miriam's well is offered as the appeal to magic but the sheer volume of water flow required form that or the rock of Horeb would require a horizontal conveyor running faster than anything one would be able to stand on, the water would need to be supplied at a flow rate equal to 180 water heaters per second and collection of 10l per family (average) would have taken up the entire daylight day leaving no time for the women to even cook for the family or take a latrine break.

 

These are the staggering facts that the claims fail to address and then we hear of the idea that the shoes they wore never wore out, how convenient.

 

All of this devolves rather quickly from an apparent historical event to a fire side story that grew some huge legs and tails and reduced mostly to an appeal to magic. Once that is the defacto point of departure, the whole tenability of this tale loses credence rather quickly.

 

The chances that they hauled of booty is highly unlikely so Aaron's calf never happened. If there were a slave population of 6M Hebrews, it stands to reason the the Egyptians would have had an army of at least 150% that size to manage the slaves. 9M. Add that together we have 15M folk in an area totally non conducive to desert conditions. Someone once posted that the Chinese population was not even that big back then and they are the biggest in the world at 1.7Bn folk. What is the current population of say Cairo in Egypt?

 

With a population of 6.76 million[6] spread over 453 square kilometers (175 sq mi), Cairo is by far the largest city in Egypt. With an additional 10 million inhabitants just outside the city, Cairo resides at the centre of the largest metropolitan area in Africa and the Arab World as well as the tenth-largest urban area in the world

 

This a city on the Nile Delta and with very modern amenities and methods of water supply like desalination plants and we are only at a population level one could infer or derive from the biblical accounts.

 

The more you apply simple math and logic, the quicker the story falls apart.

 

I have discussed this with Orthodox Jews and they simply offer the same excuse as the Catholics, you need the oral tradition too. IOW, you need to be told what to believe.

 

You have begun a journey because you chose to think and challenge the status quo. I think most of us were where you are right now. If you keep going back to apologists, I can assure you they are not going to be truthful with you.

 

When you are ready, I will share my four pillars and how they are all BS and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

BC, in the video link I posted on the previous page an archaeologist is discussing the total 'population' of Egypt at the time and what a huge dent the Exodus would have made in the local economy and how absolutely evident it would have been in the historical and archaeological record, if the Exodus were literally true. That's really why the story must be held in the context of point A to point B. 

 

I watched the tail end of the Caldwell's video where they illustrate a proposed map of the Exodus journey hugging the coastline of the Saudi Arabian peninsula and circling all the way around and ending in Canaan for the conquest period. The water required for that journey is quite radical as pointed out above. This is not very different than the flood myth where you have to contemplate how impossible it would be to fit every pair of animal into a man made boat. It's just plain silly the more you get into it from a literal perspective. And so too is the idea of several million people wandering around the entire Saudi Arabian peninsula. 

 

And then you may find yourself reduced to accepting it as partially true, as in maybe there really was a flood and ark but only locally, not globally. But the Bible says that everything on the face of the earth was destroyed accept the people and animals in the ark and they quite literally repopulated the earth thereafter, and God promised never to flood the earth with water again. All living people today would trace back to Noah and his family. And fire cleansing of Revelation is addressed to keeping to the promise of not flooding the world with water again, so the next time around it's be fire...

 

So either the Bible greatly exaggerates the truth - which isn't a true thing to do - or it completely fabricates stories whole cloth and indeed both cases seem to be evident in the Bible writings, some exaggerated partial truths and some pure fabrication. It does Christian apologetic's no good to seek out partial truths. For instance if a very small population of Israelite's found themselves as slaves in Egypt and then wondered the desert leaving behind a few scraps of their presence here and there, then the Bible is dead wrong because it's quite frank about the population numbers it asserts. Also with respect to King David and Solomon archaeology shows a small tribal warlord type kingdom at the very best, something, but nothing like what the Bible claims of it with great fame reaching far and wide. It may be partially true that a King David figure of some type did exist, but that's in no way flattering to the faith to reduce the Bible story down to such shaky partial and possible truths which turn out to be more of a lie than a truth when all is said and done. 

 

If I told you that I have 25 inch biceps and steel plates for pectorals would that be true? 

 

I do exist, I do have biceps and pectorals, so the story is partially true right?

 

But nevertheless the main primary parts of the clain are a complete fabrication. All in all, the claim I just made is a fabrication when all is said and done because a sprinkling of partially true statements does nothing to make the assertion itself truth. And an apologist for my claim would tend to focus in on the partial truths - that are essentially meaningless - in an attempt to make an appeal to the big lie I told. He might take a picture of my real biceps and fabricate the photo, misinterpret it, in order to claim that they really are 25 inches in diameter and have proof to bolster faith in my claims, proof that no professional physicians trained in their proper fields would even entertain mind you. And then you might get caught up in how sincere the apologist seems to be as a person and start thinking that if there's a chance that the apologist is even partially right then my claim need not be discredited. But at the end of the day I did fabricate the claim from the very beginning no matter how many ways one of my apologists wishes to twist my words around to try and prove that what I said was true.... 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I'm a latecomer on this topic, but maybe it's a perspective thing. To me, before all else - before the details of plausibility or anything - there is one single thing that comes to mind: starting points. First, the video, because, actually, I don't think that it's the real issue. I do find a fatal flaw, that, even if the Caldwells' credentials were spotless, would trash their whole argument. Archaeology is on a more science-y end of the scale for a discipline in history. Even if it weren't, scholarship in history and science alike has certain standards, to ensure that knowledge moves forward based on some kind of evidence, rather than letting anyone make anything they want up. One of the big rules, if not the biggest rule, in any fact-based academic discipline, is the following: don't make up your mind about what your "point" is before you have the evidence. Find clues, and then worry about what they mean. Explore a problem, don't set out to prove a point you're already sure of. The researchers set out to find evidence for something that they were already convinced was true - because they already believed that it had to be. That's a fatal violation of academic integrity. It has nothing to do with whether they're amateurs. Great achievements have been made by amateurs - Albert Einstein, for example, although educated in the field, was working as a boring pencil-pushing patent clerk, of all things, when he made his first breakthroughs in physics. And all because he didn't rest on what he thought he knew. He set out to explore why light was measured to travel at a constant speed, regardless of the speed of the observer. Just exploring.

As for the rest, I think a previous post hit the nail on the head:

 

 

As for that can of ever riggling worms........I cannot in all honesty, resolve the theological claims e.g the fall, with what science is revealing about our world.  I know 'Christians' who have no problem disregarding large chunks of the Bible that contradict science (and common sense) and hold onto the parts that do make sense: 'love each other'.  It was this 'cherry picking' that brought me to my crisis of faith recently, because I've always been of the opinion, that if one part of the Bible is suspect, then how can you rely on any of it?  The NT validates the OT, and so I don't think it's possible to throw out a part you don't happen to like.  I'm still holding out hope that Someone is out there listening (I can't help it, this hope is a part of me and never seems to wain) and so I've told them (like Margee did) that I just can't make sense of the Bible and for this Person to help me understand what it's all about (our existence).  I don't want to accept that there is no point to our existence and that my hopes, loves etc are merely a result of combinations of molecules.   My friend sent me a Christmas video the other day, that although is quite cheesy, actually brought a tear to my eye, because I could see the love and goodwill in people and how we are affected for 'good'.  Check it out:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Vnt7euRF5Pg&vq=medium

 

 

First: it's 100% okay to feel whatever you feel. Don't beat yourself up over it. I remember a thing, I don't recall what from, but it went like this: "if someone treated you the way you treat yourself, would you be that person's friend?" Be a friend to yourself, and be kind. There are no emotion police.

Second: you've got so many options, and I see a false choice here - between Christianity's point to all existence, and there not being any point. We're not all alike here, as Akheia said. I've been an atheist all my life, and I don't see it as "there's not a point." I think that there's no limits at all on the points there can be! Total freedom - THIS batch of sentient molecules can think whatever it wants to. So, try on all kinds of things. Maybe read some other culture's religious literature - like the Tao Te Ching - and see that there's actually LOTS of common ground, morally and spiritually. The cool thing, to me, is that there doesn't need to be a point, be-ing is free, even from that restriction. Besides, I just like the science version better - all life on Earth is literally one huge family, and even bacteria are smarter than you'd think. I'd take

over other cosmologies any time. But, that's just me. YOU can choose anything, anything you want to at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I told you that I have 25 inch biceps and steel plates for pectorals would that be true? 

Well it would be true if I said it :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

laugh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok guys.  You got me.  I surrender...........Wendycrazy.gif

 

Thank you to the new guys for your comments too.  You have all helped me to admit that the Exodus is heavily dependant on magic, or the supernatural, to have any chance of being legit- and as there is no evidence whatsoever for magic or a supernatural being who is directly influencing this world- then I have to conclude that it is not feasible.  Science, logic, archaeology etc etc don't support it.  We didn't even discuss the build up to the Exodus which is mainly supernatural claims i.e the plagues, the angel of death etc. 

 

I suppose it's been a hard slog to get to this point, because I'm a very gullible person.  Also, because I still believe a supernatural being is possible and therefore supernatural acts like miracles are possible, I've accepted these stories without really questioning all the points you guys have patiently shown me.  My position for now, is one of not ruling God (whoever that is) out completely, but accepting that if there is a God, He is not dealing directly with this world- things are being left to run their course so it seems.  Ever the hopeful believer, I chucked up a prayer last night, as I snuggled down for the night.  I feel so appreciative of having a warm bed, full belly etc, that I have to thank someone it seems. I can't contain that contentment and appreciation, so I thank the powers that be, whatever they are- even if it's just nature. 

 

Thanks again my friends.  biggrin.png

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Bornagainatheist- I don't mind 'BC' at all.    And yes, I would love you to elaborate.  cool.png

 

 

 

Hey BC!

 

Here we are, safely in 2013. smile.png

 

Now, I wrote that coming from a purely scientific direction, I could appreciate that reality is 'broken-and-winding-down', didn't I? 

 

Here's how.

 

Once astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding, they inferred that in the past, it's contents must have been closer together.  They could see that the very early universe must have been incredibly hot and dense, with all of it's matter and energy occupying a very small volume indeed. Taking this thought-experiment to it's logical conclusion yielded a universe of zero size, but with infinitely-high density and temperature..

 

Today, we use the term, 'The Big Bang' to describe the universe expanding (with explosive force and fantastic speed) from this quantum-sized 'seed'.  It wasn't long before other scientists realized that they could build machines that could partially simulate the super-high pressures and temperatures of the Big Bang fireball.  Doing this would be an excellent way of independently checking and testing what the astronomers were discovering with their telescopes.  So, these particle physicists built bigger and bigger Particle Accelerators to test their theories.  The largest one currently in operation is the Large Hadron Collider, or LHC, located near Geneva.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

 

As the particle physicists were designing, building and using the LHC's predecessors (from the 1950's onwards) they performed many experiments and made many discoveries.  They were building on the earlier, pioneering work of scientists who'd identified such phenomena as electricity, magnetism and nuclear energy.  As they ramped up the power of their particle accelerators they began to discover something very interesting indeed.

 

Unification

 

In 1873, James Clark Maxwell had shown that the seemingly-different forces of Electricity and Magnetism, were, in fact, two aspects of the same Electro-Magnetic force.  He had unified these two forces.   This was the first rung on the ladder of unification that scientists have been slowly-but-steadily climbing, since then.  Please look at the stepped diagram under the heading, 'Conventional Sequence of Theories' on this Wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything  It should be read from right-to-left, going upwards.  Please remember that each new level of unification requires greater energy than the last. This explains why particle accelerators are used.  Only they can generate the ultra-high temperatures and densities needed to see unification at work.

 

Electricity is unified with Magnetism to yield the Electromagnetic force.

(This happens all around us, at everday temperatures and densities.  E.g., radio waves are electromagnetic radiation.)

 

Electromagnmetism is unified with the Weak (Nuclear) Force to yield the ElectroWeak Force.

(This was experimentally proven in the 1970's and 80's.)

 

Strong (Nuclear) Force is unified with the ElectroWeak Force to yield the ElectroNuclear Force.

(We aren't there yet, but the LHC is providing plenty of data that should help scientists reach this level of unification.)

 

ElectroNuclear Force is unified with the Force of Gravitation.

 

Everything is unified in a Theory of Everything.

 

So what's all of this got to do with the Big Bang, BC?

Putting it simply, our universe began when one pure, simple and unified, incredibly hot and dense SuperForce began to fracture, splinter and break down.  Cosmologists refer to this process as Symmetry-Breaking.  As the universe devolved from it's pure state, the various forces split off from each other.  First Gravity splintered away from the ElectroNuclear Force.  Then the Strong and ElectroWeak Nuclear forces peeled away from each other, followed by the Weak Nuclear and Electromagnetic Forces going their separate ways.  Last of all, Electricity and Magnetism divided from each other.

 

Can you see how this sequence is the stepped ladder of Unification, but run in reverse?  All of these 'breakages' occured in the very first fractions of a second after the Big Bang event, when the fireball was cooling down from it's zillion's of degrees and it's density was rapidly dissapating.  So, the reality we inhabit is 'broken-and-winding-down', but it's been doing so for the last 13.72 billion years.

 

Please ask me for any help or clarification on any point/s you're not clear on, BC.  I'm happy to explain.  Also, if you'd like me to cover the theological issues thrown up by this 'broken universe' concept, please just lmk, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

LeslieWave.gif

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi BC(E) :)

 

Not really a surrender, just coming to a logical conclusion. You are probably at the point of Deism which folk may choose to stay at and one which is probably the most logical stance of all man made gods. Actually the "something out there" plausibility is something Atheists have not written off either but evidence lacks even for that premise.

 

Letting go of biblegod is probably the hardest of all to sever.

 

I mentioned the four pillars. I will share them briefly.

 

We touched on the main pillar of Exodus where apparently Moses (probably a fictitious character) got the laws, we have the passover, feast of unleavened bread and many others that are recorded in Exodus and Deuteronomy and are also touched on in the gospels.

 

If we accept that exodus never happened, then the stories of jesus are questionable too.

 

The other two OT pillars are the creation and the flood. These are pretty easy to dismiss. The earth is definitely older than 6000 odd years and while the basics of evolution may seem too much to comprehend, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The flood could never happen and the most conclusive piece of evidence is the Antarctic ice cores that date between 400 and 730 thousand years. Ice floats and the precipitation there is about 2" per year. The apologists try and counter this with wrecks of WWII planes found in Greenland on a glacier. Here the precipitation is in feet per year and a glacier is moving. Two different sets of dynamics at play. All of this you can look up on a site noanswersingenesis.com where all the AiG claims are countered with real science and is in lay terms.

 

These two events are also alluded to in the gospels. Mankind is about 150 000 years old as far as humans in current form go but we have been around a tad longer than that.

 

In the flood myth, the evidence of the movement of the continents from Pangaea has been suggested happened quickly. I have seen a documentary suggesting that the fountains of the deep forced water up at such a rate to an altitude of 20km and this resulted in the continents drifting apart at a rate of 40km/h. This of course is all bullshit as the drift happened over millions if not billions of years. As science has found plausible answers, theist have always tried to piggyback their religion on these findings and tried to keep the scam relevant.

 

The fourth pillar as far as Christianity goes, is the fella Jesus. Well if the other three are so questionable and implausible, it stands to reason, a one legged barstool can only topple over.

 

IMO Jesus never existed. There may have been some rebel to authority and may have had a following but these are grasping at straws. The question one must ask here is why would an occupying force adopt the religion of the nation it is occupying? In 70CE we had the great war which ended the Jews and the start of the great diaspora (as they would have us believe) The one tale that has historical evidence, Masada, is not mentioned in the bible anywhere. This story puts paid to the heroic feats of the Jews/Hebrews.

 

Enter Paul.

 

The epistles of Paul are also questionable to their authenticity, Paul is another fella that probably never existed.

 

How would a Pharisee, a Jew get Roman citizenship. This was an occupied land. I have heard some arguments Jerome IIRC was the author of Paul's epistles. As far as what we can glean off the gospels, extra biblical accounts, there was no love of Jews by the Romans. Crucifixion was probably something that happened to many rabble rousers.

 

Only at the council of Nicea circa 350CE do we see a canon being formed and a vote of religious dogma. Pretty much before this is hearsay to a large extent. The four gospels chosen contradict each other without extra biblical writings. The claims of the apologists of Jewish historians has been all but debunked.

 

The Roman empire was dwindling and trying to police it was becoming a huge challenge. The short version is that christianity became a state religion and used the concept of tithing to collect taxes which became far more easier than plunder. Appoint a priest in a village, coerce the people with tales of sky god, and collect for the "furtherance of the gospel"

 

So what has changed?

 

The reformation really only decided the Pope was evil and broke away only to basically follow the same con. A parallel pyramid scheme if you will. The reformation still made use of the aristocracy and the masses offered an alternative to Catholicism.

 

Mass literacy only kicked off in the ~17th Century and still only with the affluent. The real mass literacy only started in the late 19th century where commoners learned to read and write. As time went on, folk could read the bible in their own language instead of just Latin. The plot was lost.

 

The 20th century saw the biggest advances in science and we went from the Wright brother's first attempt at flight to landing on the moon in about half a century. War became the accelerator for science as we found better ways to kill each other.

 

Detailed microscopic science has only been since the late 50s and much of what science has discovered with new technologies closed the god of the gaps argument. We have dated rocks from the moon and earth to find that they are about the same age ~4.5Bn years old. Evolution is used in medicine at the micro level to treat diseases like the common cold. The hypothesis of abiogenesis is close to a theory now but the ne'er sayers demand to see a species jump in one lifetime. We offer them the duck-billed platypus and they ignore that. We offer transitions of dinos to birds and they reject that too. All the evidence from a scientific POV is there. They want to see a chimp give birth to a human. Evolution does not work that quick or that way.

 

The latest rendition of man made gods is found in theistic evolution. Theists have not contributed one iota of discovery to science. This is just a piggy back to say well god used DNA to do what science has discovered.

 

BULLSHIT!

 

60 years ago, theists were ignorant of DNA as was much of the populace. If they ignored it, they really would not have much of a leg to stand on as far as god claims went. Now it is an active science that traces and maps every living thing. The architecture seems complicated as the people claiming the complexity are ignorant of basic biology. My knowledge is better than most but I am no scientist. Some pastor with a phd obtained from a seminary wants to lay claims to complexity when all he studied was the ramblings of goat herders from 2000+ years ago and was ess taught what to believe. (see a pattern?)

 

Science and religion cannot mix. The scientific method is the method of current enquiry. Claims need to be falsifiable meaning that independent experimentation should yield identical results/conclusions.

 

 

The "god of science" is the real god that meets your every need.

 

 

Theism you ess get to make shit up as you go along and everyone else's shit is not real shit.

 

Sorry for the long ramble. This is as simple as I can paraphrase it.

 

Please continue to ask questions. We are here to help you on your journey out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA-  your post is absolutely fascinating and I am familar with some of the points you've made.   biggrin.png

 

 I don't understand this: 'a universe of zero size'.  Wouldn't this 'seed' of SuperForce be measurable in some way and so be of some 'size' or take up 'space'? 

 

I can see how this break-up of the SuperForce makes a nonsense of 'the Fall'- heck the universe is 'falling' well before we came along.

 

What is most curious though, is what could possibly have caused this Superforce to become unstable and 'break'? 

 

Did something external (and maybe more powerful) cause its break-up or was it never 'stable' to begin with?

 

Did the Superforce have a beginning and if so, what caused its beginning?

 

If we suppose that the most basic elements of matter/energy are 'strings' then surely they must have always existed?

If they've always existed (in some form or other) then what force/s can cause these 'strings' to mass together or break up?  Or maybe I've got that the wrong way round: 'strings' are born from Big Bangs, and so what gives birth to Big Bangs?   My reasoning (and no doubt lack of knowledge) is making me suspect that an 'eternal' element or Cause is 'at play'.  This eternal energy is most  probably impersonal but given the complexity of life and our consciousness/minds, I can't help concluding (and hoping) that this 'eternal energy' is intelligent, because I can't comprehend how our minds and awareness could arise from an undirected explosion. huh.png

 

 

LivingLIfe-  thank you for explaining your four pillars.  You make many sensible points.  I think it's fair to say I'm a deist when my head is ruling and a theist when my heart is.....tongue.png .  It's so good to discuss these things with you guys.  biggrin.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Ok guys.  You got me.  I surrender...........Wendycrazy.gif

 

Thank you to the new guys for your comments too.  You have all helped me to admit that the Exodus is heavily dependant on magic, or the supernatural, to have any chance of being legit- and as there is no evidence whatsoever for magic or a supernatural being who is directly influencing this world- then I have to conclude that it is not feasible.  Science, logic, archaeology etc etc don't support it.  We didn't even discuss the build up to the Exodus which is mainly supernatural claims i.e the plagues, the angel of death etc. 

 

I suppose it's been a hard slog to get to this point, because I'm a very gullible person.  Also, because I still believe a supernatural being is possible and therefore supernatural acts like miracles are possible, I've accepted these stories without really questioning all the points you guys have patiently shown me.  My position for now, is one of not ruling God (whoever that is) out completely, but accepting that if there is a God, He is not dealing directly with this world- things are being left to run their course so it seems.  Ever the hopeful believer, I chucked up a prayer last night, as I snuggled down for the night.  I feel so appreciative of having a warm bed, full belly etc, that I have to thank someone it seems. I can't contain that contentment and appreciation, so I thank the powers that be, whatever they are- even if it's just nature. 

 

Thanks again my friends.  biggrin.png

This Caldwell thing is certainly interesting. I'm glad you brought it up because it's worth exploring IMO. I'm sure that over time mainstream archaeology will get in there and start looking at these sites and provide a much broader and professional sense of analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

BAA-  your post is absolutely fascinating and I am familar with some of the points you've made.   biggrin.png

 

 I don't understand this: 'a universe of zero size'.  Wouldn't this 'seed' of SuperForce be measurable in some way and so be of some 'size' or take up 'space'? 

 

I can see how this break-up of the SuperForce makes a nonsense of 'the Fall'- heck the universe is 'falling' well before we came along.

 

What is most curious though, is what could possibly have caused this Superforce to become unstable and 'break'? 

 

Did something external (and maybe more powerful) cause its break-up or was it never 'stable' to begin with?

 

Did the Superforce have a beginning and if so, what caused its beginning?

 

If we suppose that the most basic elements of matter/energy are 'strings' then surely they must have always existed?

If they've always existed (in some form or other) then what force/s can cause these 'strings' to mass together or break up?  Or maybe I've got that the wrong way round: 'strings' are born from Big Bangs, and so what gives birth to Big Bangs?   My reasoning (and no doubt lack of knowledge) is making me suspect that an 'eternal' element or Cause is 'at play'.  This eternal energy is most  probably impersonal but given the complexity of life and our consciousness/minds, I can't help concluding (and hoping) that this 'eternal energy' is intelligent, because I can't comprehend how our minds and awareness could arise from an undirected explosion. huh.png

 

 

LivingLIfe-  thank you for explaining your four pillars.  You make many sensible points.  I think it's fair to say I'm a deist when my head is ruling and a theist when my heart is.....tongue.png .  It's so good to discuss these things with you guys.  biggrin.png

This has been covered in other discussions, but here's a lead that you may want to look into for the question of what existed before the BB, or what is the universe expanding out into:

 

And here's a creationist debating with AronRa about the issue of something coming from nothing, with respect to the BB:

 

 

Beyond nature and the cosmos, there is likely more of the cosmos, infinitely, eternally...

 

So what if when talking about God, we are simply talking about existence itself - the very existence of an eternal cosmos without fixed beginning or end?

 

We're heading into deeper waters at this point. But if you're of the opinion already that God is something along the lines of an energy then you may understand existence as a type of eternal energy which is the source and supporting ground of all things. And it may well be an energy consciousness. We've discussed that possiblity here:

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/54536-the-primacy-of-consciousness/

 

The point being that looking to nature is not necessarily a move away from God, but rather may end up bringing you much closer to God than you had been previously while looking through the literalist lens of interpretation of monotheism, such as what the Caldwell's are pushing for in the video.

 

God in the very deepest sense does not fall apart along with the literalism of Biblical stories. And for many ex-christians the falling apart of the literalism of Biblical stories served to allow us into deeper levels of spirituality and insight that we would not have encountered otherwise. Some people have been getting at that here in the discussion without spelling it out like I am right now. There's a lot of ground between right wing monotheism and left wing atheism, just keep that in mind...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA-  your post is absolutely fascinating and I am familar with some of the points you've made.   biggrin.png

 

 I don't understand this: 'a universe of zero size'.  Wouldn't this 'seed' of SuperForce be measurable in some way and so be of some 'size' or take up 'space'?  1.

You and me both, BC! 

Trying to understand how this universe came to be isn't exactly a walk in the park - but I'll try.  (Please see below.)

 

This 'seed' has long since ceased to exist in it's original form.  But what we can observe, measure, analyze and try and understand are it's after-effects.  The Big Bang's fireball has now cooled down to a temperature that just a few degrees above absolute zero.  It can only be seen using instruments that can detect Microwave radiation.  This Wiki page should help you grasp the essentials.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

 

Also, you remember that I wrote about particle colliders being used to simulate the ultra-hot, ultra-dense conditions that came with the Big Bang?  Well, the LHC has been making headway, when it comes to investigating the nature of the primordial fireball.  Scientists have calculated that in the very first instant of it's existence the universe was much too hot for molecules, for atoms or even for protons and neutrons to exist.  Quantum theory predicts that only the most primitive and fundamental entities could have tolerated the fantastic heat and pressure.  These tiny little critters are whimsically called Quarks.  At lower temperatures three Quarks get stuck together by Gluons (No, seriously!) to form protons and neutrons, the building blocks of atomic nuclei, atoms themselves and then everything else - molecules, planets, people, etc.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark-gluon_plasma

 

So, the hunt is very much on and closing in on the truth! 

 

I can see how this break-up of the SuperForce makes a nonsense of 'the Fall'- heck the universe is 'falling' well before we came along.

Indeed.  This is where Christian theology falls apart too.

 

There was no perfect condition of purity for humans to have once lived in.  The universe was broken from the start, with disease, infirmity and death naturally curtailing animal populations, billions of years before humans evolved. 

Also, man was not the cause of the universe's breakage.  (Technically, the only sentient being present at the Big Bang would have been God himself.) So then why does the god of the Bible see fit to punish unbelievers with eternal hellfire for a 'crime' that no human being could ever have committed?  And how is it possible for Jesus's sacrifice to save anyone, when nobody is guilty of the 'crime' god accuses us all of? 

 

What is most curious though, is what could possibly have caused this Superforce to become unstable and 'break'?  2.

 

Did something external (and maybe more powerful) cause its break-up or was it never 'stable' to begin with? 3.

 

Did the Superforce have a beginning and if so, what caused its beginning? 4.

 

If we suppose that the most basic elements of matter/energy are 'strings' then surely they must have always existed? 5.

If they've always existed (in some form or other) then what force/s can cause these 'strings' to mass together or break up?  6.

 

Or maybe I've got that the wrong way round: 'strings' are born from Big Bangs, and so what gives birth to Big Bangs?   7.

 

My reasoning (and no doubt lack of knowledge) is making me suspect that an 'eternal' element or Cause is 'at play'.  This eternal energy is most  probably impersonal but given the complexity of life and our consciousness/minds, I can't help concluding (and hoping) that this 'eternal energy' is intelligent, because I can't comprehend how our minds and awareness could arise from an undirected explosion. huh.png

8.

 

Hey!

 

Why don't you just ask me a difficult question?  wink.png

 

Seriously though BC, I will take a shot at this. 

You'll see that I've numbered your questions in red.

So please give me some time to prepare answers, as best as I understand them - remembering that I'm not a physicist or cosmologist, but an amateur astronomer, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was a christian I sported with the idea of infinite Universes and the implications it would have, how it would be modelled and so on. In short, it easily makes the conscious deity concept obsolete, but yet still may be conscious on a higher level due to emergence.

 

When you think of our human consciousness and ask how it could come from nothing, I can assist you in learning more about emergence. Firstly though I would like to raise the topic of consciousness. What is it exactly? I will share some of my in-progress thoughts about it in the aid of it helping you think about that topic.

 

The first thing I would remind you of though, is that your brain is intelligent enough to introspect and consider how it works. That when combined with self awareness can lead to the false illusion to the system that the system itself (i.e. the consciousness) lives on a different set of rules to the outside reality. In fact it tends to cause a perception of the mind as being something that cannot simply be the result of mere material interactions because surely, "I can feel myself, I can experience life, no matter can do that".

 

So then you should firstly start to ask, can this consciousness that I exist as result from mere material interactions? Secondly you should ask the same question from another angle, what intelligence can exist from mere material interactions? The answer to the second question is consciousness. This happens for a simple reason, and I say simple with a bit of a smile, but the "intelligence" and functioning of the brain works by what I call feedback confirmation re-synthesis.

 

Re-synthesis

Your brain re-synthesises the world it perceives when it makes mental models. When you think of the word, "one", your brain, just like an electronic keyboard that reproduces trumpet sounds at the touch of a button will synthesise a model of the word, "one".

 

Your brain is able to form complex creations purely through re-synthesis. Now the term re-synthesis is used over synthesis as it doesn't just synthesise models, but examines models to reproduce them. So its key function is that of reproducing rather than just producing, though you will soon find that synthesising new thoughts and ideas is also an important function.

 

Confirmation re-synthesis

When new information is presented to the brain it has to perform an initial task: record the information. So when you are taught to sing the song, "Mary had a little lamb", before you learn it your brain must construct a simple model of the phrase in both its musical form and its literal form. Since you are only four years old these nursery rhymes are often vivid, and in this case depicts ownership. You might have an image in your head of Mary having one of those funny hats that you might today associate with the Amish community. Nonetheless, your internal representation is forged as mary next to a little lamb.

 

The musical relations are much easier, it's just a simple spacial relation of musical notes.

 

Where the confirmation re-synthesis comes into play is when you are making a more permanent representation. Here your brain will try existing and new neural pathways to see if it can reproduce the phrase. It might put together previous recordings of "mary" along side "modulations" of the performance of that word so that it sounds like the "Mary" you are trying to reproduce.

 

The most successful pathways will be strengthened to forge a memory.

 

Note: it is possible that it uses existing pathways that are produced regularly, or that new pathways are formed on the fly throughout the day. Neural plasticity seems to be underdeveloped, though if you want to look more into that topic you need only look at that topic.

 

The process of confirmation is also a key part of searching memories. For example you perceive a face, make an initial representation of the face according to your face type records to make a simpler model to search your database of known faces. So this narrow face with a squished nose, slender eyebrows and pointy ears has several matches. These matches are tried against the more detailed face until a definite match is found. During this process your brain will be distorting the held image to match the prospect as much as possible.

 

Feedback confirmation re-synthesis

We know that the brain is fully capable of re-synthesising learnable truths, facts and ideas. Your ability to form such representations is your intelligence quotient (IQ), which is just a measure of your capacity for learning (and in my opinion, communication).

 

The role of feedback allows many interesting things to happen. When an idea is formed (which is pretty much a network that triggers previous networks that form previously created ideas) it can be tested against previous recordings, ideas, problems and most importantly new data. This would explain how you are able to form elaborate ideas during dreams, or even find complex solutions to near intractable problems appearing out of nowhere.

 

Within your mind you had already de-converted, but you had to bring-up this understanding to your consciousness. Your subconscious, the jungle where various thoughts exists that may never each the conscious mind and may die at any point due to not ever being invoked, is full of new thoughts. Many are pointless, such as two golden unicorns iceskating backwards over London Bridge, but that's okay, you will just never use that thought and it will die. However there are many thoughts that are built up from your existing knowledge that are useful, for example the truths you are soon to discover. It is through interacting with the world that we are able to educate ourselves, but forging the connections that relate to reality.

 

So you just don't have a place for two golden ice skating unicorns, but inside that vast network of newly birthed ideas are many solutions to problems you are facing now, are to face in the future, or may never face at all.

 

---

 

Consciousness (the experiencing self) itself operates, in my opinion, in a very small part of the brains, namely the working memory. You will notice that until any idea enters your working memory it does not exist to you. Due to feedback, the conscious mind sees itself as the sole centre of the brain when in fact it is a ghost without a shell without the subconscious and unconscious mind. In fact I don't even like to think of unconscious and subconscious as minds, hence my terminology of re-synthesis :)

 

Because of how the conscious mind communicates with the world, it learns that it is the integral link between the world and itself.

 

--

 

My apologies if this post seemed a little incoherent. My hope is that it stimulates thought and fact finding on your part so that you can find the answers that you need in order to carry on your own personal investigations :) It's quite exciting to do that isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

p.s. BAA is awesome, ... I might have to ask you some questions, you are an excellent researcher :) Wouldn't it be so great if we could do this stuff for a living?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joshpantera- I agree that the Caldwell stuff is interesting and all the indications suggest there is much archaeological treasures waiting to be discovered in the Saudi Arabian deserts. wink.png

 

I'll check out the previous discussions you've linked to.  I've watched the two films.  I've come across AronRa before.and I can't agree more with what he says in this film.  I've also watched other films of Dr Michio Kaku.  He makes cosmology understandable for the layperson.

I couldn't agree more with your following statements:

 

The point being that looking to nature is not necessarily a move away from God, but rather may end up bringing you much closer to God than you had been previously while looking through the literalist lens of interpretation of monotheism, such as what the Caldwell's are pushing for in the video.

 

God in the very deepest sense does not fall apart along with the literalism of Biblical stories. And for many ex-christians the falling apart of the literalism of Biblical stories served to allow us into deeper levels of spirituality and insight that we would not have encountered otherwise. Some people have been getting at that here in the discussion without spelling it out like I am right now. There's a lot of ground between right wing monotheism and left wing atheism, just keep that in mind...


 

 

 

BAA- I look forward to your answers and appreciate your time and effort. biggrin.png

 

Falemon- thank you for your help too.  Yet again fascinating stuff.  I used to suppose that consciousness was somehow 'spiritual' or had a spiritual dimension to it ie not just physical, but now, from the things I'm learning, I'd say that consciousness is a merely physical process.  I recently watched a science programme, where some scientists in Sweden (I think?) have developed experiments that trick your awareness of yourself.  You wear a camera that makes it seem like you are in front of yourself and various experiments can cause you to perceive yourself as 'out of your body' or something like that.  I can't quite remember it now, sorry.  Before I watched this film, I'd not long read an article about a brain surgeon, who'd had a NDA and who would not accept that what he experienced was his brain tricking him.  His experiences were so powerful and 'real' and coupled with the fact that the part of the brain that is responsible for awareness, was shut down (supposedly?) he was sure that he had left his body and was in a spiritual dimension.  I was very interested in his experience (as anyone who is hoping for more than just a few years of existence would be wink.png ) .  When I watched the science programme with those experiments, it struck home, how our consciousness or awareness is physical and prone to errors.   The awe (which I perceive as a 'spritual awe'??) I feel at the sheer beauty and complexity of life, in particular us humans, and how complex our brains are, which allows us to be conscious, is what causes me to hope that the development of our brains, was no accident, but seems planned. (Yes, I know my brain may be tricking me into seeing design....tongue.png ).  I can't comprehend how a multi-part 'machine' that has to be finely calibrated can come about by 'chance', or off the back of a passing chunk of space debris.  This 'fallen' universe seems to produce beauty and intelligence whilst it falls, which seems illogical.........................huh.png  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”

― J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back again!

 

(Oy vey!  Really, really difficult to get to sleep with so many ideas buzzing around in my head.  ezhappydead.gif )

 

But I persevere... because I'm passionate about this stuff and have been since my early teens... way, w-a-y back in the Jurassic Period. GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

Anyway, to business!

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Looking at your questions BC, I reckon that I #8 is a good place to start. 

You've echoed your intial puzzlement in this sentence, "This 'fallen' universe seems to produce beauty and intelligence whilst it falls, which seems illogical."  So, clearly the issue of how complexity can arise from simplicity, is vexing you.  Hopefully I can help.  I'll leave the concepts of emergence and consciousness to Falemon, as this these are clearly his passion and field of expertise, ok?

 

(Way to go, Falemon!  thanks.gif  Great input!  yellow.gif Oh and thanks for the kind words. )

 

BC, I'd like to illustrate how complex things (planets and people) can arise from something seemingly random and undirected (like the Big Bang event) by starting with Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2.

 

Energy (E) equals mass/matter (m) over the velocity of light C squared (2). 

 

This can be understood to mean that there's an equivalence between matter and energy.  Matter is 'frozen' energy.  When a fire is lit or lightning strikes, a very small amount of energy is liberated from the atoms in the environment.  Coal, oil and gas are naturally-occuring reservoirs of chemical energy that we can release in various ways.  Nuclear energy converts even more of the frozen potential of matter into energy.  Nuclear fission and fusion require great heat and pressure to liberate energy from nuclear fuels like plutonium or deuterium.  Yep!  Can you see where this is going?

 

Heat and pressure again.

Just like the steps in the Unification of the Forces.  Increase the heat and pressure and more and more frozen energy is released.  This is why the U.S.S. Enterprise (NCC-1701, the original and best!) used a matter-antimatter powered propulsion system.  Without going off on a tangent BC, just take it from me that slamming together matter and antimatter under conditions of great heat and pressure will release phenomenal quantities of energy.

 

Now, as we're climbing up the energy scale, we need to look at what Mother Nature can do.  You've heard of Supernovae and Gamma Ray Bursts?  If not, don't panic.  Wikipedia will help out if you there.  Just take it from me (again) that these are the most powerful releases of energy that we know of today.  These explosions can been seen across billions of lightyears.  They get to be so powerful because the entire masses of stars much larger than our Sun detonate under conditions of... extreme heat and pressure. 

 

The only instance where greater energies have been released is in the Big Bang event itself.  Here the density and heat were mind-blowingly high.  If you go back to that Wiki page on the Quark-Gluon Plasma, you'll see that the LHC scientists are claiming a temperature of 5.5 trillion degrees Celsius for some of their experiments.  Ok then, we're back at the Big Bang.  If you recall, I've said that as we ascend the ladder of Unification, the increasing heat and pressure have the effect of simplifying things.  The 'broken' and 'splintered' diversity of our cold, everday universe (with it's Electrical, Magnetic, Nuclear and Gravitational forces) begins to merge and unify into one over-arching SuperForce.  Now BC!  Hold that thought.

 

Hold it and jump back to Einstein's E=mc2.

His equation revealed that matter and energy are equivalent, right?  And I've taken you on a brief journey back to the Big Bang, stopping off now and then to see how energy is released from it's 'frozen' state as matter becomes heated and compressed, yes?   Ok then, here's the pivoting point.

 

This equation works in both direcions. 

Matter and energy are equivalent.  Matter can become energy if it's put under pressure and heated.  But what happens if you flip things around and allow energy to cool and expand?  That's right!  Do the exact opposite and follow the ladder downwards.  Take the (possibly infinite) energy of the Big Bang event and let it cool and expand. 

 

Astronomers found out in the 1930's that every galaxy is flying away from each other.  The universe is expanding.  So it must have been smaller and denser and hotter earlier in his history.  Run the clock backwards far enough and the whole universe shrinks and heats up... down and down and down... hotter and denser...smaller than a molecule... smaller than an atom... right down to the Quantum scale. 

 

Can you see it, BC?

Because the Big Bang's energy was so great and because matter and energy are equivalent, the initial fireball held within it the potential to become our universe.  The ultra-rapid expansion and cooling didn't liberate energy... it 'froze' it into matter.  Not all at once, of course.  Remember how I described the various forces peeling, splintering, splitting and separating from each other?  This is how the pure SuperForce broke down.  These are the 'breakages' I referred to much earlier in this thread.  This is why reality is the way it is.  This is why nothing lasts forever.  Things wear down and die because the SuperForce's simple energy has been converted or frozen into various complex forms of matter - our universe.

.

.

.

 

 

Whew!  eek.gif   That was quite a ride!

From here to eternity and back again.

 

 

BC, I'd like to say a bit more about how complexity can arise from simplicity.  Not today.  But soon.  Doing this should lead us nicely to your other questions, 1 thru 7.  As a taster, I'll tell you this.

 

My next posting (assuming all is well) will be about H2O.  Water!  I'll try an explain how something so simple can also be so diverse and complex. ok?  Along the way we'll also look at Fractals and 3.14, a.k.a Pi.

 

Gotta run!  Bye!

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.